JESUS AND THE GALILEAN CRISIS:

INTERPRETATION, RECEPTION, AND HISTORY

by

Tucker S. Ferda

B.A., Bethel University, 2007

M.T.S., Duke University, 2009

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

University of Pittsburgh

2016
 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

THE KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

This dissertation was presented

by

Tucker S. Ferda

It was defended on

February 29, 2016

and approved by

Clark Chilson, PhD, Associate Professor of Religious Studies

Nicholas F. Jones, PhD, Professor of Classics

Joel Marcus, PhD, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins

Adam Shear, PhD, Associate Professor of Religious Studies

Dissertation Advisor: Dale C. Allison Jr., PhD, Richard J. Dearborn Professor of New Testament

Dissertation Co-Chair: Jerome F. D. Creach, PhD, Robert C. Holland Professor of Old Testament

ii
 JESUS AND THE GALILEAN CRISIS:
INTERPRETATION, RECEPTION, AND HISTORY

Tucker S. Ferda, PhD

University of Pittsburgh, 2016

19th-century attempts to reconstruct the historical Jesus often featured the theory of a Galilean

crisis. The crisis theory held, in general, that Jesus public career passed through sequential

stages of friendly and hostile reception, and further contended that growing opposition to Jesus

led to certain changes in his theology, outlook, or rhetorical tone. The purpose of this dissertation

is to investigate the origins of this idea, its interpretive logic in the Gospels, and the historical

value of the hypothesis (if any) for contemporary study of the historical Jesus.

The three main contributions of the project are as follows. First, the study fills a lacuna in

the history of scholarship, since the crisis theory is typically treated briefly, if at all, in surveys of

Jesus research. What is more, when mention is made of it, descriptions of its background and

origin are often rife with misunderstanding. This dissertation will challenge conventional

periodizations of Jesus scholarship, and significantly widen the scope of research in pre-modern

sources, by arguing that the crisis theory is in many ways a historical solution to preexisting

interpretive problems in the reading of the Gospels.

Second, it will be argued that the interpretive and even historical logic of the crisis theory

is still very much a part of current scholarship. The notion that we posit a change in historical

context to resolve certain theological tensions in the Gospel traditionand particularly that we

periodize or stratify those tensions in our sourcesparallels numerous projects in New

iii
Testament studies in remarkable ways. This discussion will enable one to see continuity where

histories of research have tended to stress discontinuity.

Thirdly, the project will contend that, although the crisis theory is in many ways a failed

hypothesis in the macro, it raises questions that current Jesus research has largely been content to

ignore. The final chapters will reflect on the question of the consistency of Jesus throughout his

ministry, the notion of a Galilean spring, and the suggestion that the tradition is marked by a

struggle to respond to growing opposition and the rejection of his message.

iv
Copyright by Tucker S. Ferda

2016

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1

1.1 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................3

1.2 THE NEED FOR THIS STUDY ...................................................................................4

1.3 APPROACH ..................................................................................................................9

1.4 THE QUEST FOR JESUS AND HISTORICAL METHOD ......................................15

2.0 INTERPRETIVE PRECURSORS AND HABITS OF READING .......................24

2.1 THEOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................25

2.2 GOSPELS, GAPS, AND IMAGINATION .................................................................32

2.3 REJECTION, DISAPPOINTMENT, AND FEAR......................................................47

2.4 CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................59

2.5 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................67

3.0 BEFORE REIMARUS: REFORMATION AND ENLIGHTENMENT ..............70

3.1 THE HUMANITY OF JESUS ....................................................................................71

3.2 GOSPEL HARMONIES AND PARAPHRASES .......................................................77

3.3 FREETHINKERS AND DEISTS ................................................................................95

3.4 PERIODIZATION AND BOOK CULTURE ...........................................................110

3.5 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................118

vi
4.0 THE GALILEAN CRISIS AND THE 19TH-CENTURY QUEST .......................120

4.1 REIMARUS AND STRATIFICATION ...................................................................121

4.2 HASE IN PROPER HISTORICAL CONTEXT .......................................................127

4.3 THE CRISIS THEORY IN LATER LIVES OF JESUS ...........................................141

4.4 THE 19TH-CENTURY CRISIS THEORY: AN ASSESSMENT ..............................164

4.5 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................178

5.0 THE AFTERLIFE OF THE CRISIS THEORY IN 20TH- TO 21ST-CENTURY

CRITICISM ..............................................................................................................................181

5.1 THE IMPACT OF WREDE AND FORM CRITICISM ...........................................182

5.2 A GALILEAN CRISIS AFTER FORM CRITICISM ...............................................190

5.3 THE CRISIS THEORY AND THE Q PEOPLE ...................................................212

5.4 THE 20TH- TO 21ST-CENTURY CRISIS THEORY: AN ASSESSMENT ..............225

5.5 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................254

6.0 CONSISTENCY AND CHANGE ..........................................................................256

6.1 POSSIBILITIES ........................................................................................................256

6.2 EARLY PERCEPTIONS OF JESUS ........................................................................273

6.3 JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST .........................................................................287

6.4 JESUS AND ISRAELS SCRIPTURE AND TRADITIONS ...................................299

6.5 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................318

7.0 FAME AND FAILURE ...........................................................................................320

7.1 A GALILEAN SPRING? .......................................................................................321

7.2 GROWING OPPOSITION ........................................................................................333

7.3 THE GALILEAN WOES ..........................................................................................334

vii
 7.4 THEOLOGIZING REJECTION ...............................................................................360

7.5 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................391

8.0 FINAL THOUGHTS ...............................................................................................393

APPENDIX: JESUS, THE LAW, AND GROWING OPPOSITION..................................400

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................433

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Interpreting History ...................................................................................................... 11

Figure 2. Matthews rearrangement of Mark .............................................................................. 235

Figure 3. Lukes rearrangement of Mark ................................................................................... 238

Figure 4. Teaching and Response .............................................................................................. 365

ix
 CHAPTER 1.0:
INTRODUCTION

History may not repeat itself. But it often rhymes.

--Mark Twain

In Barcelona on July 20, 21, and 22, 1263 CE, the Jewish convert to Catholicism, Pablo

Christiani, debated the Jewish philosopher Moses ben Nachman (better known as Nachmanides).

In front of a sympathetic audiencethe debate was organized by the ChurchChristiani aimed

to show from not only the Torah but also the Talmud that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah.1

Nachmanides disputed the argument with a number of counterclaims, one of which was this: if

Jesus had been the Messiah, there would have been a mass Jewish following. As it was, however,

Jesus was rejected by most of those who heard of him.

Nachmanides was not, of course, the first to highlight the rejection of Jesus as a

theological problem for Christianity. We see already in the 50s of the first century the Apostle

Paul wrestling with it in Romans 9-11 and elsewhere (e.g. 2 Cor 3:15-18). The topic emerges in

Justins Dialogue with Trypho, as well as in the 2nd and 3rd-century Adversos literature.2 Mass

1
For an overview of the Disputation of Barcelona see Robert Chazan, Barcelona and
Beyond: The Disputation of 1263 and Its Aftermath (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1992).
2
Cf. Ora Limor and Guy Strumza, eds., Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics
between Christians and Jews (Tbingen: Mohr, 1996).

1
rejection is clearly the subtext of b. Sanh. 43a, which claims that for forty days prior to his

execution there was an invitation for anyone who can say anything in his favor(to) come

forth. No one came.3

In light of this material and much else that could be mentioned, it is not surprising that

historians have expressed interest in the topic of how Christians responded to the rejection of the

Gospel.4 What is infrequently noted in recent criticism, however, is that such inquiry has not

always been so focused on the post-Easter Church. Indeed, it was once common to assume that

Jesus himself had grappled with the failure of his mission to Israel. Jesus himself had recognized,

and was forced to explain, the meaning of the sowers wasted seed. This idea emerged most

forcefully in the theory of a Galilean crisis, which had its heyday in the 19th-century Quest for

Jesus. The development of the crisis theory, its interpretation of the Gospels, historical logic, and

value for contemporary research (or lack thereof), constitute the focus of this study.

To speak of a Galilean crisis is not to speak of a uniform reconstruction of the

historical Jesus. There was much diversity in terms of what exactly the crisis was thought to

be, and how it played out in the ministry. Nonetheless, the studies described in this project as

proponents of the crisis theory (as it will be called) share a number of important

characteristics, or have a certain family resemblance. Of particular importance are these features:

3
See Peter Schfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007),
63-74.
4
The issue emerges frequently in the essays compiled by Craig A. Evans and Donald A.
Hagner, eds., Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1993), as well as in the work of Miriam S. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early
Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus (Leiden; Boston: Brill: 1995); James
Carleton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians and Antiquity (WUNT 251; Tbingen:
Mohr, 2010); Judith Lieu, Neither Jew nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity (2nd ed.;
London et al.: Bloomsbury, 2016).
2
(i) Jesus started his ministry with great success and popularity; (ii) there was an increase in

opposition to him; (iii) opposition led to certain developments and/or changes in Jesus theology,

outlook, or rhetorical tone; (iv) at some point Jesus experienced mass defection in the Galilee;

(v) one could say that, when Jesus left for his final Passover in Jerusalem, he had had an

unsuccessful ministry in the Galilee. These five characteristics constitute not a checklist but

rather a typology.

1.1. OBJECTIVES

This project is on one level a history of Jesus research and on another an attempt to reconstruct

Jesus as a figure in history. These are two very different tasks. It should be stressed at the outset

that I do not intend this study to be a simple combination of the two in the manner of

Schweitzers famous Von Reimarus zu Wrede (in which his survey of scholarship led up to, as a

preparation for, his own solution at the end). That is to say, the focus of the whole is not my

reconstruction of the historical Jesus. The concluding chapters will indeed offer an assessment of

the crisis theory as a hypothesis and make a number of historical proposals. But the previous

chapters are not mere prelude to that final argument, and the hope is that each chapter stands on

its own and makes a unique contribution to the reception history of the Bible and the history of

Jesus scholarship.5

5
I thus hope to avoid the criticisms of histories of research by Bruce Chilton, The Temple
of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), 93-94. On the one hand, one must grant his point
that it is all too easy to trace a line of development that makes the latest sensibility appear to be
a triumph, or at least a climax, and I nowhere wish to claim to have solved the interpretive
and methodological issues that have inspired the crisis theory; many questions remain. On the
other hand, however, if one is to make an argument about anything in dialogue with others, it is
more or less inevitable that one put forth a case that is thought to be worth following.

3
 This study, then, is conceived as a kind of critical commentary on the crisis idea. As

modern critical commentaries of biblical books are interested in linguistic and conceptual

background, sympathetic description, and (for some at least) historical explanation, so too our

study will engage the crisis theory from these three different angles. On the whole, the objective

is to answer three broad questions about the crisis theory in modern research: where does this

idea come from, what forms does it take, and is there anything to it for our knowledge of the

historical Jesus? To this end, the study has been divided into three different sections, each

devoted to one of these questions.

1.2. THE NEED FOR THIS STUDY

There are four reasons why this study is important for current research on the Gospels and the

historical Jesus. First, the crisis theory is typically treated briefly, if at all, in surveys of Jesus

research. This lacuna is striking because of the once-prominent status of the theory, but it is not

entirely surprising, since many New Testament scholars have regarded Albert Schweitzers

discussion and criticism of 19th-century literature to be definitive. Few critics after Schweitzer

have thought that there is much left to be learned from these Lives of Jesus.6 Due in large part

to the perceived success of Schweitzers project, then, it has been easy for critics ever since to

relegate these works to a unique period of scholarship and to ignore them. I make this point

6
Cf. here N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1996), 21: Schweitzer is thus the turning-point in the history of the Quest. He demolished the
old Quest so successfullyand provided such a shocking alternativethat for half a century
serious scholarship had great difficulty in working its way back to history when dealing with
Jesus. See also Paul Rhodes Eddy and James Beilby, The Quest for the Historical Jesus: An
Introduction, in The Historical Jesus: Five Views (ed. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy;
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 9-54 at 20 (Schweitzer marks the end of the old quest).

4
sympathetically. When it is nearly impossible to keep up with contemporary publications in the

field, who has time to go back and read the old stuff for themselves?

Moreover, given the incredible amount of material available for the researcher, studies of

prior Jesus research must be selective. Schweitzer himself lamented in his preface that it would

take almost a whole book to simply list 19th-century research on Jesus, and he was not

exaggerating.7 More recently, William Baird has written in one of his masterful studies of New

Testament criticism that a comprehensive survey of all the scholars and all their writings would

require several lifetimes with a few generations of purgatory thrown in.8 And in penning this

statement he was only thinking of the stretch from the pietists to the 19th century. The upshot is

not only that sweeping surveys must leave out a good deal of material; it is also that, simply for

management purposes, the particular interests of the scholar must dictate what is included and

what is not. In this respect, the interests of the historian tend to function like holes in the bottom

of a sieve: of all the material that is put in for sifting, only that which matches the shape and

profile of the historians interest finds its way out. Schweitzers work has endured not least

because he was capable of offering rich and poignant discussions of prior literature, such that the

reader comes away with a feel for these works as wholes. But even then Schweitzers study is

7
The preface is included in John Bowdens edition, which is based on Schweitzers
second German edition, see The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans. W. Montgomery et al.; ed.
John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001 [orig. 1913]), xxxiii. The remainder of this
study will use a 1955 Macmillan edition, which is based on Schweitzers first edition (1906).
This project will employ both original German editions of 19th-century works and sometimes
English translations. That decision was often made on the basis of the accessibility of the
German editions.
8
William Baird, From Deism to Tbingen (vol. 1. of History of New Testament
Research; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), xix.

5
really driven by his interest in three issues: ethics and eschatology, John and the Synoptics, the

supernatural. His treatments betray that interest.

The point is that prior surveys of Jesus research have, of necessity, focused on particular

questions, and there has never been a study that shares our interest: how did the crisis theory

come to be and exert such influence on thinking and writing about Jesus?9 It should be

emphasized here that our task is not simply descriptivee.g. to summarize what people have

said about a Galilean crisis. Rather, the goal is to explain the interpretive and historical logic of

the crisis theory, as well as hermeneutical patterns in reception history that made its existence

possible. In other words, we are interested not just in the what but the why.

A second need for this project is that, when critics do make mention of the crisis theory in

whatever form, descriptions of its background and genesis are often rife with misunderstanding.

All of this will be discussed in much more detail later, but a few important examples suffice to

demonstrate the point. In Schweitzers survey, the genesis of the idea was said to be the work of

Karl Hase (1829).10 Schweitzers emphasis on Hase is not entirely misleading, but it fails to

grasp that Hases reconstruction of two periods in Jesus career was a conscious response to

prior research, and he relied on interpretive conventions to do so. More recently, John Meier

briefly described, and ultimately rejected, the theory of a joyous beginning and a disastrous

9
The study that nears the interest of this project more than any other is the recent work
by the late Eckhard Rau, which he was unable to finish before his death. See Eckhard Rau and
Silke Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu: Pladoyer fur die Anknupfung an eine schwierige
Forschungstradition (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013). Rau will be an important conversation
partner, but his survey of earlier work was much more limited in scope and it had different
interests.
10
See Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans. W. Montgomery; New
York: Macmillan, 1955 [orig. 1906]), 61.

6
end to Jesus Galilean ministry. He contended that the germ of this idea could be found

already in Renans Life of Jesus (1863).11 This also, I will argue, fails to grasp how Renans

developmental biography of Jesus relied on preexisting interpretive tradition, and was more a

flowering than the germ of this idea. Finally, and more recently still, there is Barry Smiths

monograph Jesus Twofold Teaching of the Kingdom of God (2009).12 This volume does not

seem to be aware that its hypothesis that Jesus ministry passed through two different contexts

of reception (which he terms the non-rejection context and rejection context, respectively) is

hardly a novel one.13 It may in fact have helped Smiths case to show that he is not the only

reader of the Gospels to think that certain tensions in Jesus teaching are best resolved by

positing a change in historical situation.

To be clear, the point is not just to say that our study provides a missing piece of the

puzzle, or simply that we are adding some missing content to other surveys of Jesus research.

The point is that we actually do not know what we think we know about 19th-century criticism

apart from an accurate grasp of the background and logic of the crisis theory. The idea of a

Galilean crisis was a historical solution to preexisting problems of interpretation in the

Gospels, and the story of the recognition of those problems, and even some important stabs at

solutions to them, are necessary to understand how and why the crisis theory appeared as it did.

11
John Meier, Companions and Competitors (vol. 3 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the
Historical Jesus; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 25-26, and 35 note 24.
12
Barry D. Smith, Jesus Twofold Teaching about the Kingdom of God (Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009).
13
Though see Smith, Jesus Twofold Teaching, 185 note 1, where he cites an important
article by Franz Mussner that will be discussed later in detail.
7
 Third, because our aim is not only to describe what people said about a Galilean crisis but

to better understand why they did so, our inquiry into the history of scholarship informs

contemporary discussions of Jesus and the Gospels. Of course, critics by and large no longer

write Lives of Jesus, and very few recent monographs feature what could be called a Galilean

crisis. So scholarship has, at least on a surface level, decided against the plausibility of the crisis

idea. But, as I will argue, the interpretive issues that prompted the crisis theory are still very

much with us. Not only that, the basic historical solution offered by the crisis theorye.g., that

we posit a change in historical context to resolve certain theological tensions in the Gospel

traditionparallels contemporary discussions in several remarkable ways. Thus, I will suggest

that, while we must acknowledge differences between recent work and the much-criticized Lives

of Jesus, it is also informative to identify clear interpretive parallels between the new and the old.

Hopefully our discussion will enable one to see continuity where histories of research have

tended to stress discontinuity.

Fourth, and finally, investigation of the crisis theory is informative for contemporary

research not only because of the interpretive questions it helps to expose, but because some of

the historical answers offered to those questions deserve a fresh hearing. I will contend that the

idea of a Galilean crisis suffers from numerous problems as a historical hypothesis, and this

study is not a wholesale endorsement of it. However, I will argue that particular features of the

crisis theory offer valuable insights on perplexing traditions in the Gospels, particularly in the

suggestion that the Jesus tradition is marked by disappointment and a struggle to respond to

rejection. In this respect I must second the insight of Eckhard Rau that this earlier literature, its

8
weaknesses notwithstanding, offers issues and insights which, though often forgotten or

abandoned, could be helpful.14

1.3. APPROACH

In one of his last published articles, Per Bilde wrote the following:

The traditional Christian (not Jewish or Muslim) interpretations of Jesus from the New
Testament through Antiquity and the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment were religious,
dogmatic and a-historical, and therefore are of no interest to modern research.15

The reality of significant change over time in cultural conceptions of history, and history writing,

is beyond dispute.16 However, from the perspective of reception history, Bildes comments are

deeply misguided. There are three related problems here, and identifying them can serve to

introduce the approach of this study to the task at hand. First, earlier interpretations ought to be

of interest simply because they are not always so foreign to modern research. As Chapters 2 and

3 of this project will detail, numerous readers of the Gospels before the advent of modern

14
Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 22 (...gibt es auch im Damals
Fragestellungen und Einsichten, die, oft vergessen oder gar verleugnet, helfen knnen). Also
insightful here is Dale C. Allison Jr., Secularizing Jesus, in Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest
Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2005), 1-26 at 9:
Ifwe can cast aside the strange notion that New Testament scholarship must, like the hard
sciences, ever progress onward and upward, then there is no reason to doubt that some of the
older books about Jesus might get us as close or closer to the truth than some of the more recent
ones. The passing of time does not always and everywhere carry us closer to the truth.
15
Per Bilde, Can it be Justified to Talk about Scholarly Progress in the History of
Modern Jesus Research since Reimarus?, in The Mission of Jesus: Second Nordic Symposium
on the Historical Jesus, Lund, 7-10 October 2012 (eds. Samuel Byrskog and Tobias Hgerland;
WUNT 391; Tbingen: Mohr, 2015), 5-24 at 17.
16
On changing conceptions of the historical task see Ernst Breisach, Historiography:
Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (3nd ed.; Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2008);
Edward Wang and Georg G. Iggers, eds., Turning Points in Historiography: A Cross Cultural
Perspective (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2002).

9
historical criticism anticipated the interpretive conclusions of contemporary critics.17 Moreover,

even when pre-critical exegesis differs from modern work in terms of the interpretation of

specific texts and themes in the Gospels, at times one can still identify in those earlier readings a

grappling with interpretive issues that continue to inspire modern exegetical discussion.18 For

instance, as I will show in Chapter 2, John Chrysostom thought that Jesus teaching changed

over the course of his ministry: Jesus started with a pleasant message about promise and the

advent of the kingdom of God, and then later, only when his disciples were adequately prepared,

did he begin to speak about judgment and the future. Here Chrysostom reflected on the same

Gospel material that later critics would use to periodize the ministry of Jesus and claim that he

changed his mind on account of rejection. Chrysostoms explanation was different, of course, for

his Jesus did not change his mind but rather adapted to meet the theological capacity of his

audience. But what we have here is only a minor difference in explanation of the same material.

To make such a claim is not to assume a highly dubious hermeneutical theory that regards texts

as containers of stable and timeless meanings.19 It merely acknowledges that, despite the

For some examples on other matters, see Dale C. Allison Jr., Forgetting the Past,
17

DRev 120 (2002): 255-70.

18
Ulrich Luzs commentary on Matthew demonstrates this time and time again. See also
my study The Seventy Faces of Peters Confession: Matt 16:16-17 in the History of
Interpretation, BibInt 20 (2012): 421-57.
19
Hence the practice of reception history, or Wirkungsgeschichte, has typically focused
on the understanding and application of a text in time, and particularly interpretive variation. See
David Paul Parris, Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics (PTMS 107; Eugene: Pickwick,
2009); Mark Knight, Wirkungsgeschichte, Reception History, Reception Theory, JSNT 22
(2010): 137-46.

10
inevitable subjectivity of interpretation and the formative influence of the horizon of reception,

texts remain agents in history, and they influence their readers to greater and lesser degrees.20

This point leads to a second and closely related one, which has to do with the interpretive

nature of historical Jesus research. Consider Figure 1:

the historical Jesus the Gospels the historian

historical time

Figure 1. Interpreting History

20
A distinction is often made between reception history and history of interpretation,
on the grounds that, according to one critic, the latter has interest in biblical texts as fixed or
self-evident intellectual objects(which have) intrinsic or original meaning. So Nancy
Klancher, A Genealogy for Reception History, BibInt 21 (2013): 99-129 at 101. This study
will at times use the descriptor history of interpretation positively, but I in no way hold to the
view that Klancher here critiques. To believe that one can read any text in its historical context
and make certain probabilistic determinations about its literary origins, genre, aims, and, if
appropriate, historical reliability is not to hold to the view that that text is a self-evident
intellectual object. Klanchers own excellent reception history of Jesus encounter with the
Canaanite woman in Matt. 15:21-28 (The Taming of the Canaanite Woman: Constructions of
Christian Identity in the Afterlife of Matthew 15:21-28 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013]) makes the
point. For her project assumes that it is possible to engage these various readings of Matt. 15 in
their respective historical contexts and come to determinations about textual meaning in those
contexts. This study assumes nothing more about reading the Gospels. For similar attempts to
show the interrelatedness of historical criticism and reception history, see Robert Evans,
Reception History, Tradition and Biblical Interpretation: Gadamer and Jauss in Current
Practice (London et al.: Bloomsbury, 2014). He notes on 39: Historical-critical investigation
may thus be viewed within the methodology of reception history as constituting one of the
synchronic cross-sections of the diachronic linehistorical-critical methods not only do not
stand outside of the diachronic exercise of reception history, but may be represented as an
[essential] operation within it. They do not produce the primary datum in the sense of a single
and unchallengeable meaning of the text to which other meanings are later addedbut they
contribute to the scholarly task of a projection of the horizon of the past which for Gadamer is
one phase in the process of understanding; and for Jauss, this is a strategy to render the
horizon of a specific historical moment comprehensible. Evans contends that attempts to
distinguish and separately categorize reception history and historical criticism or historical
critical exegesis misconstrue the thought of both Gadamer and Jauss.
11
The point of this basic and schematic diagram is to communicate two important truths. The first

and most obvious one is that the historical Jesus is not accessible to the historian apart from

the fragmentary and piecemeal primary sources that have been preserved. That is to say,

anything that we conclude about the historical Jesus, or about the actual past, is only possible

on the basis of what we can infer about that past from our sources. We cannot get around our

sources to evaluate them by means of some other objective medium. That leads to the second and

even more important truth, which is that the Quest for the historical Jesus is almost entirely an

exercise in the interpretation of the Gospels.21 What historical Jesus scholars really do is read

texts and posit various hypothetical historical scenarios for the actual past behind those texts.22

Thus, the distinction between historical reconstruction and exegesis of the Gospels informs

insofar as it indicates a difference in the readers aims, but it can be misleading insofar as it

disguises the fact that historical reconstruction is dependent on exegesis for nearly all of its

content. The reason there are so many different reconstructions of Jesus available is that there are

so many different ways to read these texts and posit what actual past inspired them. The

enigma of the historical Jesus, in the end, is the reality of the textual Jesus.

21
Almost entirely because archaeology plays an important role as well; but here we
face a similar question as artifacts must be interpreted. See John R. Bartlett, What has
Archaeology to do with the Bibleor Vice Versa?, in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation
(ed. John R. Bartlett; London: Routledge, 1997), 1-19 at 13.
22
Helpful here is Jens Schrter, Jesus of Nazareth: Jew from Galilee, Savior of the World
(trans. Wayne Coppins and S. Brian Pounds; Baylor: Baylor University Press, 2014 [orig.
2012]), 17: historical-critical Jesus research moves within a certain fuzzy sphere, since it
details as a historical endeavor with sources that do not mediate an unambiguous picture of the
past. Therefore, its goal cannot be to reach the one Jesus behind the texts but to reach a
conception grounded on the weighing of plausibilities, which as an abstraction from the sources
always moves in front of the sources.

12
 Why is this relevant for our purposes? It is relevant because once contemporary historical

Jesus research is properly seen as the interpretive procedure that it is, it no longer remains

tenable to assume that pre-critical readings of the Gospels are of no interest to current

historical inquiry. That is to say, just because pre-critical exegetes did not, on the whole, posit

the same actual past as contemporary historians, that does not mean their engagement with the

Gospels was wholly dissimilar. There may be similarity in terms of the interpretation of the

Gospels, and dissimilarity in terms of the actual past that is inferred on the basis of those texts.

The case of Chrysostom and later Jesus research above demonstrates the point, for there we have

a similar interpretation of Gospels (for Chrysostom, in this case, of Matthew), and yet the

construction of different narratives to explain them. The point is essential to grasp for the

approach of this study, since one of the main theses of this book is that a number of different

projects in the study of the New Testament, from a great variety of time periods, are actually

held together by similar interpretations of our sources.23 The crisis theory, for instance, is at once

dissimilar to earlier claims about Jesus ethical teaching in the works of the English Deists, as

well as to contemporary reconstructions of Q and the people that produced it, and yet similar

in terms of several underlying reading strategies.24

23
This explains why, in what follows, I will use harmonize in a broader sense than is
typical. I use the term to refer not only to the work of Gospel harmonies, but to other attempts to
reconstruct the history of Jesus and the early Church on the basis of the entire Gospel tradition.
For in that latter case, critics will similarly infer a narrative of historical development and change
to make sense of all of the Gospel materialboth what they deem authentic and secondary.
Gospel harmonies, and many 19th-century Lives of Jesus, aimed to fit all of that tradition into the
ups and downs of the career of Jesus, whereas later critics would use that same tradition to
reconstruct a historical process that encompassed both the life of Jesus and the experiences of the
early Church.
24
Those who doubt the existence of Q or much of the critical scholarship on that
document should still find the discussion of these interpretive parallels of interest for the
reception of the double tradition. When it comes to my own reconstruction of Jesus in Chapters 6
13
 Thirdly, Per Bildes comment above about the independence of contemporary

historiography from prior religious and dogmatic readings fails to acknowledge that all of

our readings, like it or not, have been shaped by earlier exegetical tradition. In that sense, our

project is not only interested in identifying interpretive parallels from various times and places, it

is also interested in the way that certain habits of reading were constructed in the history of

interpretation, which then influenced later interpreters.25 Geoffrey Barraclough wrote that The

history we read, though based on facts, is, strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of

accepted judgments.26 That perceptive statement is relevant to the point made above about the

interpretive nature of historiography, and it is also relevant here since the acceptance of such

judgments about the past have their own history and invariably impact the way that new

generations of historians engage the material.27 Among other arguments, I will propose in this

and 7, I will assume the existence of Q, even though, as will be clear throughout, I have doubts
about the helpfulness of various stratification theories and reconstructions of the history of the
Q people. For arguments in favor of Q, I find the following treatments compelling in general:
Werner Georg Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Howard Clark Kee; 17th ed.;
Nashville; New York: Abingdon Press, 1975), 63-76; Christopher Tuckett, The Existence of
Q, in From the Sayings to the Gospels (WUNT 328; Tbingen: Mohr, 2014), 51-77; John S.
Kloppenborg, On Dispensing with Q and Variation in the Reproduction of the Double
Tradition and an Oral Q?, in Synoptic Problems: Collected Essays (WUNT 329; Tbingen:
Mohr, 2014), 62-90 and 91-119.
25
Habits of reading is from the excellent study by Brenda Schildgen, Power and
Prejudice: The Reception of the Gospel of Mark (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999).
She writes on 17: The history of how the Bible has been read emphasizes more forcefully than
the history of any other text how tentative and yet how powerful reading-interpretive habits are.
26
Geoffrey Barraclough, History in a Changing World (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), 14.
27
The point here is related to the notion of a readers horizon of expectation, which is
partly derived from earlier readings of the text. See Klaus Berger, Exegese des Neuen
Testaments: neue Wege vom Text zur Auslegung (Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer, 1977), 95. On
Jausss influence here, see Anthony C. Thiselton, Reception Theory, H. R. Jauss and the
Formative Power of Scripture, SJT 55 (2012): 289-308.
14
study that the openness to, and curiosity in, reorganizing pericopae in the Gospels is one such

accepted judgment that can be found well before the advent of modern historical criticism.

Moreover, I will argue that changes in the appearance and layout of books around the time of the

Reformation influenced later historians in terms of how they conceived of the past that those

texts claimed to describe.

The preceding three points serve to explain why this study will begin its investigation of

the crisis theory well before the supposed beginnings of the Quest for the historical Jesus. This

project challenges periodizations of the Quest that, following Schweitzers lead, regard Hermann

Samuel Reimarus in 1778 to have no real predecessor. Thus, my hope is that the arguments in

the following pages contribute not just to our knowledge of the crisis theory, but to our

knowledge of Jesus research in general.

1.4. THE QUEST FOR JESUS AND HISTORICAL METHOD

As a final prelude to our study, it is also necessary to address briefly recent concerns in Jesus

scholarship involving historical method. Chapters 6 and 7 will make some proposals regarding

the historical Jesus, and it needs to be stated clearly how this argument relates to current debate

about the traditional criteria of authenticity (in particular: multiple attestation, embarrassment,

coherence, and dissimilarity) and the notion of authenticity or historicity in general. Both

15
the criteria28 and the notion of authenticity/historicity29 have come under heavy scrutiny in recent

years.

I should state at the outset that I have found many of the criticisms of the criteria to be

forceful, and it is not necessary to rehash them here. It is problematic to continue using them

without addressing the problems that critics have raised.30 However, not all of the criticisms

seem to be of equal value, and I dispute the idea that Jesus research has now entered a new

phase or even a fourth or fifth Quest. I wish to make four points to state my position.

First, criticisms of the criteria and the notion of authenticity have sometimes produced

rather grandiose claims about their demise or uselessness, which do not seem justified when

one looks at the kinds of arguments that those same critics will use in making positive claims

about the historical Jesus. Brant Pitre has recently shown that some of the most vocal critics of

the criteria continue to use notions of contextual plausibility (sometimes called primitiveness),

coherence, and even dissimilarity in their own reconstructions of Jesus.31 This does not render

28
Although there is diversity of opinion among these works, see esp. Morna Hooker, On
Using the Wrong Tool, Theology 75 (1972): 570-81 (though she concluded that the criteria
must still be used, for there are no others); Klaus Berger, Kriterien fur echte Jesuworte? ZNT
1 (1998): 52-58; Dale C. Allison Jr., How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of
Authenticity, in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (eds. Tom Holmn and Stanley
E. Porter; 4 vols.; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), 1:3-30; Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of
Authenticity (eds. Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne; London; New York: T & T Clark, 2012).

See Rafael Rodrguez, Authenticating Criteria: The Use and Misuse of a Critical
29

Method, JSHJ 7 (2009): 152-67.

The most recent contribution to John Meiers A Marginal Jew on the parables of Jesus
30

(2015), which continues to employ the authenticity criteria, contains no in-depth engagement
with these recent challenges. That is striking considering Meiers encyclopedic treatment of
secondary literature throughout this series.
31
Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 32-46. For
similar remarks, see Tobias Hgerland, The Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research,
JSHJ 13 (2015): 43-65 at 53-62.
16
the criticisms of those scholars moot by any means, but it should temper any notion that current

Jesus research need resurrect itself in a post-criteria age.

Second, and in a similar vein, some criticisms of the notion of authenticity or

historicity can create the impression that there is a more disagreement with earlier research

than seems to be the case. As Pitre has shown with the criteria, it is clear that some vocal critics

of historical positivist approaches to Jesus continue to use a similar notion of authenticity,

even if they prefer other terms. In Anthony Le Donnes monograph The Historiographical Jesus,

for instance, which rails against historical positivism, he nevertheless advocates using the criteria

of authenticity to determine whether the tradition originated in memory or invention.32 There

must be a notion of what actually happened at play here, otherwise his memory or invention

binary is meaningless.33 Chris Keith, who has also been critical of the quest for authentic Jesus

tradition, and even more critical of the authenticity criteria, wrote this:

the claim that scholars cannot detach tradition from interpretation does not entail a further
claim that scholars cannot posit, discuss, and propose a past entity (whether the oral Jesus
tradition or the historical Jesus) behind the interpretations of the written Gospels. The
claim, more accurately, is that scholars cannot engage in such enquiries by attempting to
neutralize those interpretations and eliminate them from the historical task. Undoubtedly
some of those interpretations have better claims to historical accuracy than others, and it
is the job of critical scholarship to assess those claims. But scholars must carry out these
tasks by explaining those interpretations, not casting them aside before the real historical
work begins. In other words, the first step in the critical reconstruction of the past that
gave rise to the Gospels should be toward the interpretations of the Gospels in an effort to

32
Anthony Le Donne, The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of
David (Baylor: Baylor University Press, 2009), 82-83.
33
To my mind, Le Donne improves his point when he prefers to speak of a basis in
perception rather than a basis in invention in his more recent study, The Criterion of
Coherence: Its Development, Inevitability, and Historiographical Limitations, in Keith and Le
Donne, Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, 95-114 at 96. It should be noted that Le
Donne is a rather moderate voice in comparison to others in this volume.

17
 understand them and explain them, not away from them, as was the case for form
criticism and its outgrowth, the criteria approach.34

This is an illuminating paragraph, which admits that one can discuss a past entitybehind the

interpretation of the Gospels. Keith further uses expressions such as historical accuracy and

the past that gave rise to the Gospels. So what then is the disagreement? In Keiths words, it is

that the criteria approach required that critics neutralize those interpretations (in the Gospels)

and eliminate them from the historical task. On one level, of course, Keith is right: everything is

interpreted; there is no pristine, uninterpreted past. On another level, however, it does not seem

that acknowledging that truism takes us very far, particularly when we begin to discuss specifics

in the Gospels rather than theory. I cannot imagine that a proponent of the criteria of authenticity

would suggest that she casts aside the interpretative framework of the Gospels in a quest to get

to the past behind them. Perhaps Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar did this; but they are

already pass, and surely not all those who employ the criteria can be so described. What then

would it look like, concretely, for a historian to neutralize those interpretations and eliminate

them from the historical task? Presumably this historian would find material in the Gospels that

is, in her estimation, not helpful for our understanding of what Jesus and his original followers

thought; there is material that is, one might say, misrepresentative. Keith may wish to remind us

that records of things that Jesus never actually said and did still may capture what he was

aboutsuch as the general impression that Jesus was engaged in controversies with his

opponents, regardless of the particulars of those episodes.35 That is a good insight that bears

34
Chris Keith, The Indebtedness of the Criteria Approach to Form Criticism and Recent
Attempts to Rehabilitate the Search for an Authentic Jesus, in Keith and Le Donne, Jesus,
Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, 25-48 at 39-40.
35
See his recent book Jesus against the Scribal Elite: The Origins of the Conflict (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2014).
18
repeating.36 But here, if I understand Keith rightly, he does not so much challenge an underlying

notion of authenticity as much as he offers a more expansive understanding of it.37

This leads to a third point, which aims to describe more accurately what recent criticisms

of the criteria and the notion of authenticity/historicity really entail. To my mind these criticisms

do not really touch the logic of the criteria, nor the notion of authenticity/historicity in general,

but rather are about the end to which the criteria, and the notion of authenticity/historicity, are

sometimes used. That is to say, I find that recent critics are generally more skeptical than some

earlier researchers about the promise of the criteria to deliver results about small, individual

pieces of the Gospel tradition.38 And that criticism, to my mind, is sound.39 The problem with the

36
See already C. H. Dodd, History and the Gospel (New York: Scribners Sons, 1938),
94 (fact stands independently of the historical status of the several stories in detail). See also
Hgerland, The Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research, 62-63 (We will have to be
aware [in our future use of the criteria] that inauthentic material, although invented, always
draws to some extent on remembered and commemorated traditions with a basis in
perception).
37
Insightful on this issue is James Crossley, Jesus and the Chaos of History: Redirecting
the Life of the Historical Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 50: even if we do
not think miracles really happen/happened, we could theoretically learn something about the
impact of Jesus and early understandings of Jesus which may assist us in understanding ideas
associated with the historical Jesus. However, I am not convinced we should entirely dismiss
concepts of authentic and inauthentic. For a start, we might indeed accept that memory and
gist play a crucial role in reflections on the historical Jesus but at what point do we get out of
touch with Jesus, or too abstractly related to Jesus to be of significant use in the study of the
historical Jesus?
38
One finds that skepticism already in Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM
Press, 1979), who nevertheless contends that the criteria can be useful to establish the historical
likelihood of a particular saying or action (rather than establishing or proving it).
39
I wonder if much of the recent debate about the criteria of authenticity recasts an older
debate over holism vs. atomism in Jesus study. On this see William R. Telford, Major
Trends and Interpretive Issues in the Study of Jesus, in Studying the Historical Jesus:
Evaluations of the State of Current Research (eds. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; Leiden et
al.: Brill, 1994), 33-74 at 49-50. See also Donald L. Denton, Historiography and Hermeneutics
19
criteria is not that they are worthless tools, but that, to borrow one of Allisons images, they are

too blunt for the kind of surgery that some critics have set out to accomplish.40 In that sense,

the criteria may often be unable to settle the question of whether Jesus said precisely x or did

exactly y. But the key point is this: just because the criteria cannot always settle particular

questions does not mean that the historical logic of the criteria are inherently problematic,41 nor

that the idea of an authentic past need be abandoned. Dale Martin wrote in a recent article that

I am under no illusion that the traditional, modern criteria render the kind of confident
certainty imagined by some scholars in previous generations. But the simple argument
that a saying or event passed along by different independent sources has a better chance
of being historical is a sound one. Also, the argument that a saying or event that goes
against the tendency of the relevant text or the pieties of early Christianity renders that
saying or event more likely historical seems to me still to be a valid point. I am not, that
is, advocating a rigorous use of a particular method designed to produce facts; I am
simply mounting what I take to be persuasive arguments.42

I see nothing to disagree with here.

in Jesus Studies: An Examination of the Work of John Dominic Crossan and Ben F. Meyer
(JSNTSup 262; London; New York: T & T Clark, 2004).
40
See Dale C. Allison Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2010), 153.
41
Denton, Historiography and Hermeneutics, 209: (granting certain criticisms), that all
criteria of historicity are therefore illegitimate does not necessarily follow. I would note that
there are certain general historiographic principles that the criteria may reflect, such as the
comparisons that are a part of all critical history. It may be possible to reconceive and
reformulate the criteria with such principles in mind, along with the epistemological and literary
observations that are presently impinging on historical and biblical studies.
42
Dale Martin, Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous, JSNT 37 (2014): 3-24
at 12 note 15. See also Gerd Hfner, Das Ende der Kriterien? Jesusforschung angesichts der
geschichtstheoretischen Diskussion, in Historiographie und fiktionales Erzahlen: Zur
Konstruktivitat in Geschichtstheorie und Exegese (eds. Knut Backhaus and Gerd Hfner; BTS
86; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007), 97-130 at 128-30.

20
 I would conclude, then, that the magisterial work of John Meier is troubled by recent

criticism not because he offers arguments about what Jesus actually said and did; the issue is that

Meier frequently makes arguments on a micro-scale, tracing the tradition-history of a particular

logion or deed back to a reconstructed original form, to which he then applies the authenticity

criteria. I doubt that this kind of endeavor can succeed.43

The fourth and final point is where we go from here. Helpful again is Brant Pitre, who

contends that the best guides for the future are actually behind us. In his view, E. P. Sanderss

Jesus and Judaism (1985) endures because of its triple-context approach (Pitres description)

to the historical Jesus. Sanders wrote:

[T]he only way to proceed in the search for the historical Jesus is to offer hypotheses
based on the evidence and to evaluate them in light of how satisfactorily they account for
[1] the material in the Gospels, while also making Jesus [2] a believable figure in first-
century Palestine and [3] the founder of a movement that eventuated in the Church.44

Sanders did make some detailed claims about Jesus, to be sure, but in general he focused on the

bigger picture. He intentionally avoided claiming much about the sayings tradition, since he

thought that it was often impossible to determine the original forms and contexts of the

utterances of Jesus.45 In both respects Sanderss work dovetails nicely with that of other recent

43
Though it is necessary even here to give Meier his due, for his approach at times
resembles recent holistic approaches. For instance, he contends that we can be confident that
Jesus was thought to perform miracles, even if we are uncertain about the historicity of the
individual stories that have been preserved. See Companions and Competitors, 336. He makes a
similar point elsewhere about Jesus debates with the Pharisees, as well as his teaching in
parables, see Probing the Authenticity of the Parables (vol. 5 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the
Historical Jesus; New York: Doubleday, 2015), 48-49.
44
E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 166-67. This
passage is also cited by Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper, 32.
45
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 13-17.

21
critics who have urged that we at least start with the general impact or gist of Jesus actions

and deeds in the Gospels.46 It also coheres with the nuanced approach of Paula Fredriksen, who

aimed to work backwards from the early Church to Jesus by charting certain trajectories.47

Fredriksen, like Sanders, did not put much stock in the sayings tradition, and often concluded

that it is impossible to decide on the historicity of particulars. To be sure, we may occasionally

be able to make a good case that a certain saying or set of teachings goes back to Jesus. But here

the objective is not to reproduce the ipsissima verba Jesu. The goal, rather, as Pitre has helpfully

proposed, is to capture the substantia verba Jesu: the substance of the teaching of Jesus.48

These approaches have influenced the final chapters of this project. Admittedly, pointing

to a few exemplars does not constitute a method of approach. But to posit one particular

method is not the objective here. James Crossley was right in his recent book to state that the

best way forward in Jesus studies is an old-fashioned view of interpretation, argument, and the

combining of arguments for collective weight to make a general case.49 That is what I offer in

Chapters 6 and 7.

The risk of concluding the Introduction with a discussion of the criteria of authenticity is

that it may give the impression that this book is narrowly focused on my reconstruction of the

46
See esp. Allison, Constructing Jesus, 1-30.
47
Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the
Emergence of Christianity (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000), 77.
48
Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper, 47: whenever I conclude that a particular saying or
action is historical or historically plausible, I am not saying that Jesus said exactly these words
(ipsissima verba), nor am I just saying that the text sounds exactly like Jesus (ipsissima vox).
Instead, I am claiming that the basic substance or content of the teaching or action can be
reasonably concluded as having originated with him (italics orig.).
49
Crossley, Chaos of History, 44-45.

22
historical Jesus. But as stated above, that reconstruction is only one of several topics in this book.

Our project is really a commentary on the crisis theory, and the final chapters only serve to

enrich our discussion of the whole. What James Carleton Paget described as the purpose of a

biblical commentary will be the ideal for our project as well:

one might want to assert that the greatest achievement of a commentator may lie in the
effectiveness with which he or she updates the reader on the story so far, that is, the
extent to which he or she collates and arranges what has preceded, and how what may
emerge from this in the way of firmer conclusions, however speculative, stimulates
further discussion.50

It is to those ends that we proceed.

50
James Carleton Paget, review of Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of
James, by Dale C. Allison Jr., EC 5 (2014): 393-416 at 415.
23
 CHAPTER 2.0

INTERPRETIVE PRECURSORS AND HABITS OF READING

As noted in the Introduction, histories of the Quest of the historical Jesus conclude that the

theory of a Galilean crisis gained currency only in the 19th century. It is assumed that prior critics

did not have the philosophical underpinnings, methodological tools, and historical perspective

that were necessary for such a conclusion. As Albert Schweitzer claimed in his famous survey of

Jesus literature, Karl August Hase (1829) provides for the first time the idea of two different

periods in the life of Jesus, and thus created the modern historico-psychological picture of

Jesus.1

The truth in this assertion is that Hases reconstruction, as a whole, was distinctive, and

cannot be found packaged in an earlier form. This should not surprise. The hermeneutical and

theological world of the 19th century was much different than that of pre-Enlightenment

Christian thinkers, and so their approaches to and readings of the Gospels. But as much as the

19th-century Quest for Jesus differed from the work of prior generations, the pejoratively termed

pre-critical period witnessed readings that in many ways anticipated and led to modern biblical

scholarship, including Hases proposal. R. M. Grant was right in saying that many of the

problems, historical in nature, which arise out of the canonical gospelswere faced by Christian

1
Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 61.

24
writers in the first two or three centuries.2 And more recent critics have further demonstrated the

point in discussing various takes on the composition of the Gospels, and even debates about

historicity, in the works of Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and many others.3

This chapter traces a similar line of thought and wishes to demonstrate that, as much as

the full-blown crisis theory does not emerge until the 19th century, earlier readers of the Gospels

wrestled with many of the same issues, and even reached some of the same interpretive

conclusions, as would later proponents of a Galilean crisis. Moreover, these earlier readings of

the Gospels began to forge certain habits of reading that would influence later reception of the

Gospels and contribute to the development of the crisis theory in the modern period. These habits

of reading include not only exegetical treatments of particular passages and themes, but also the

very questions, both historical and theological, that early interpreters began to raise about the

Gospel sources and the life of Jesus. For we hope to show, in the end, that as much as the crisis

theory belongs to the 19th-century Quest, it also attempts to offer a historical answer to very old

interpretive questions.

2.1. THEOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS

But before we consider some of these precursors and reading habits, it is necessary to address

first certain theological barriers to the construction of a Galilean crisis in Gospel reading before

the Reformation. For the very notion of a Galilean crisis assumes that Jesus was ignorant of the

2
R. M. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus (London: SPCK, 1961), 2.
3
See e.g. Helmut Merkel, Die Widersprche zwischen den Evangelien: Ihre polemische
und apologetische Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin (WUNT 13; Tbingen: Mohr,
1971); Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids;
Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009), 1-3; Francis Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective
(Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2013), 13-61.

25
future, that the concrete experiences of his ministry thwarted his expectations, and that his

teachings and deeds were not found compelling by the majority of his contemporaries. Three

commonly held theological perspectives on Jesus and his mission excluded these assumptions

and hence the possibility of a Galilean crisis at the outset.

The first is that few believed the denouement on Golgotha resulted from an earlier

failure. Instead the cross was the end goal from the very beginningindeed, it was integral to the

purpose of the incarnation itselfand the decision to go to Jerusalem certainly not ad hoc.4

There is little else to say here. Already in the 2nd century the Apostles Creed can pass over the

ministry of Jesus without a word (conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate), and in the 4th Athanasius found it necessary to explain why

Jesus did not go straightaway to death.5 Augustine wrote that Jesus had to go through the events

of his ministry so that there might be something for the evangelists to write down, something to

be proclaimed to the Church. But when he had done as much as he judged would be sufficient

for the purpose, the time indeed cameby his will.6

Aside from the influence of the New Testament itself on this view,7 christological

discussions that increasingly relied on notions of divine immutability further problematized the

4
Augustine speaks for a great many when he says If Christ had not been put to death,
death would not have died. See Serm. 261.1 in The Later Christian Fathers (ed. and trans.
Henry Bettenson; London: Oxford University Press, 1970), 222. See also Trin. 13.10. Aquinas
notes in Summa 3a.46.2 (reply) that, since God foreknew and willed the passion, it could not be
frustrated.
5
In his words: this is why in his coming he did not offer his sacrifice for all
(immediately)he would have ceased to be visible to the senses. So to the contrary he showed
himself visible in this body, remaining in it See Inc. 16.4 (SC 199:322-25 [my translation]).
6
Augustine, Hom. Jo. 8.12 in Homilies on the Gospel of John 1-40 (trans. Edmund Hill;
Works of Saint Augustine III/12; New York: Hyde Park: New City Press), 181.
7
Explored in Chapter 6 below.

26
idea that the divine Son reacted to external factors.8 There was also an apologetical motive, since

apparently some non-Christian readers supposed that the death of Jesus arose from circumstances

beyond his primary aims.9 Celsus declared at one point: Let us disregard the treachery of his

disciples and the nonsensical idea that Jesus foresaw everything that was to happen to him, for

if it is true that he foreknew what was to happenindeed intended it from the start, why is he

represented as lamenting and wailing, and supplicating God to make him strong in the face of

death?10 For Celsus, then, Gethsemane shows that Jesus began with other intentions. If there

were numerous readings of similar ilk, then they did not survive.

A second mitigating factor, closely related to the first, concerns the omniscience of Jesus.

The Galilean crisis requires that Jesus knowledge develops, that he learns from his environment,

and that he knows not what is to come. But the perspective that Jesus had perfect knowledge was

widespread, especially after Niceas .11 The possibility that the Galilean

8
Nicea anathematized any suggestion that Christ was subject to alteration or change.
And the Council of Antioch (ca. 341) decided that the Son was immutable by nature not just by
will. See David M. Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the
Construction of the Arian Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 195. Note
here Athanasius, C. Ar. 1.36 (NPNF2 4:327): the Son, being from the Father, and proper to His
essence, is unchangeable and unalterable as the Father Himself. See also De synodis 23 for four
creedal statements drafted at Antioch.
9
For apologetical views see e.g. Epiphanius, Pan. 24.9.1; Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 27.2;
Ambrose, Exp. Luk. 4.55-56 (ACCS 3:83) (understand that he was not forced to suffer the
passion of his body. It was voluntary); Aristides, Ap. 10.15; Bede, Hom. ev. 2.3. Peter
Chrysologus reminds that Christs death is not a mishap, but an act of power in Serm 72a.1
(FC 110:1), and the 8th century Pseudo-Cyprians Jesus tells his disciples: Let me assure you
that I am able to escape from everything which is about to befall me; and I know the things that
will happen before they do happen. See Roelof van den Broek, On the Life and Passion of
Christ: A Coptic Apocryphon (Leiden: Boston: Brill, 2013), 150-51.
10
On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians (trans. R. Joseph Hoffmann;
New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 62-63 (my italics).
11
A view evident in Ambroses categorical assertionand the many like itthat
(Christ) is not ever mistaken. See Spir. 2.11.114 (PL 16:799c). Cf. Athanasius, C. Ar. 3.51;
27
ministry itself was cut short by unforeseen circumstances is not clearly rejected by ancient

interpreters because the hypothesis is not ever explored in detail. But since exegetes had little

trouble making all texts affirm Christs omniscienceMark 13:32 (the son does not know the

day or the hour) a famous example12it is clear that any general theory of cognitive

development or change on Jesus part would be problematic.13 The issue of omniscience became

acute in the West after Augustine since he thought ignorance the result of original sin and sense

perception a consequence of the Fall and the loss of the light of God.14 Even though Aquinas

would nuance the debate with the help of Aristotles active intellect (intellectus agens) and

passive intellect (intellectus possibilis),15 he concluded that Jesus did not really learn anything

from experience,16 and assertedlike others before himthat Christ had the beatific vision

Basil, Ep. 236; Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 30.15; Epiphanius, Pan. 76.26.4-5, 17; Cyril of
Alexandria, Trin. 6.
12
See the excellent study by Kevin Magidan, Christus Nesciens? Was Christ Ignorant of
the Day of Judgment?, in The Passions of Christ in High-Medieval Thought: An Essay on
Christological Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 39-50.
13
Cf. Raymond Moloney, Approaches to Christs Knowledge in the Patristic Era, in
Studies in Patristic Christology (eds. Thomas Finan and Vincent Twomey; Portland: Four
Courts, 1998), 37-66. Aquinas: Nothing could be new or surprising for the divine knowledge of
Christ in Summa 3a.15.8 (reply) (ed. and trans. Liam G. Walsh; vol. 49 of Summa Theologiae;
London; New York: Blackfriars, 1974), 215. See here Bonaventure, Comm. Luc. 7.14.
14
Augustine, Pecc. merit. 2.48; Maxim. 2.9. See Raymond Moloney, The Knowledge of
Christ (New York; London: Continuum, 1999), 57.
15
Aristotle, De an. 3.5.
16
Summa 3a.12.2 (reply). The issue is complicated, however, and there is much debate
on how to interpret Aquinas on the issue. Cf. Paul Gondreau, The Passions of Christs Soul in the
Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (Mnster: Aschendorff, 2002), 137-90; Magidan, Passions, 31-
38; Moloney, Knowledge of Christ, 62-63. See also Summa 3a.5.4 (reply) (ed. R. J. Hennessey;
vol. 48 of Summa Theologiae; London; New York: Blackfriars, 1976), 148 where Aquinas
affirms that Christ had a human mind and intellect as the Gospel narrative records how he
wondered (commemorat eum fuisse miratum). The tension seems to arise from the desire to see
grace maximize and perfect human nature rather than obliterate it. Aquinas admits that he has
written inconsistently on the issue at Summa 3a.9.4 (reply).

28
while on earth (even in the womb).17 There is little room here for genuine disappointment. Of

course not all shared these high views of Christs knowledge,18 and Arians (considered in greater

detail below) hunted for evidence that Jesus grew in knowledge or was ignorant of things.19 But

these discussions concerned the interpretation of specific texts (esp. Phil 2:6-11; Ps 45:7-8; Heb

1:4; 3:2; Acts 2:36; Prov 8:22) and did not, as far as we know, suggest that Jesus agenda

changed over the course of his ministry.20

Aside from the issue of omniscience, one might think that the eventual affirmation of two

wills in Christ would make possible the conclusion that Jesus human intentions were altered by

the experiences of his ministry, or that Jesus, as very man, would have to deliberate and choose a

certain course of action.21 But such is not the case.22 Maximus the Confessor assumed no conflict

17
Summa 3a.34.4 (reply). Cf. Michael R. Allen, The Christs Faith: A Dogmatic Account
(London; New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 37.
18
See e.g. Eulogius of Alexandria apud Photius, Bibl. cod. 230; Leontius of Byzantium,
De sectis 10.13. Note also Themistius of Alexandria and the Agnoetai dispute, see Aloys
Grillmeier, From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604) (vol. 2 of
Christ in Christian Tradition; trans. John Cawte and Pauline Allen; London: Mowbray;
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 362-84; The Catena in Marcum: A Byzantine
Anthology of Early Commentary on Mark (ed. and trans. William R. S. Lamb; Leiden: Brill,
2012), 183-84.
19
Of course many dispute the characterization of the Arians as a clearly defined
historical movement. See Gwynn, Eusebians, 183-86. But since the focus here is hermeneutics
and not the historicity of the Arian community, I will continue to ascribe particular readings to
the Arians.
20
See Athanasius, C. Ar. 1.37-3.58. Hilary of Poitiers also provides a catalogue of proof-
texts in Trin. 10.9. It is unlikely that an Ebionite christology reached conclusions that were more
radical than the Arians; see Irenaeus, Haer. 1.26.1-2 concerning Christs advanced knowledge
and his endowment with the Spirit. See also Clem. Hom. 2.6, 10 (Christ knows all things).
21
Earlier thinkers like Gregory of Nyssa seem to have suggested at times that the two
could be in conflict. Concerning Gethsemane he says: There is a distinction between the divine
and the human will, and he who made our sufferings his own utters, as from his human nature,
the words which suit the weakness of humanity; but he adds the second utterance because he
wishes the exalted willto prevail over the human, for mans salvation. See C. Apoll. 32 in
Later Christian Fathers, 141.
29
between the human and divine wills,23 and the vindication of his view at Constantinople III

(680/1 CE)24 would be affirmed by many after though with quite different terms and logic.25

A third barrier, which is also a sad chapter in the history of Jewish-Christian relations,

concerns the common ways that Christians made sense of the rejection of Jesus by his Jewish

contemporaries. Many were unwilling to accept the possibility that Jesus failed in an otherwise

honest effort to win the faith and allegiance of his audience.26 Instead, Jesus hearers were to

blame for not accepting the Son of God, and their failure was explained by blindness,27

22
Cf. Grillmeier, Chalcedon to Gregory the Great, 153-73.
23
See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) (vol. 2 of The
Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine; Chicago; London: University of
Chicago Press, 1974), 74. Maximus denied that Christ deliberated about a certain course of
action as it would presuppose ignorance and mutability. Maximus also believed that the
hypostatic union required the perfect accord of wills. See Demetrois Bathrellos, The Byzantine
Christ: Person, Nature, and Will in the Christology of Saint Maximus the Confessor (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004), 129-74 (for additional reasons).
24
Cf. Exposition of Faith of the Third Council of Constantinople in Nicea I to Lateran V
(ed. Norman P. Tanner; vol.1 of Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils; London: Sheed & Ward;
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 128-30.
25
See e.g. John of Damascus, De fide 14. Cf. Corey L. Barnes, Christs Two Wills in
Scholastic Thought: The Christology of Aquinas and its Historical Contexts (Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2012).
26
Theophlact in Aquinas Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels Collected
Out of the Works of the Fathers (trans. John Henry Newman; 1841; 4 vols.; repr., Southampton:
Saint Austin Press, 1997), 2:105: After the miracles which have been related, the Lord returns
into His own country, not that He was ignorant that they should despise Him, but that they might
have no reason to say, If Thou Hadst come, we had believed Thee
27
E.g. Justin Martyr, Dial. 27.4; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.8; Tertullian, Marc.
3.23; etc. Cf. Craig A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and
Christian Interpretation (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 161: (Isa 6) lent itself very conveniently for
purposes of anti-Jewish polemic and apologeticthe Isaianic text was used to explain the Jewish
rejection of Jesus.

30
sinfulness,28 and ignorance of the Scriptures.29 Chrysostom made the point plain: their (the

Jews) misunderstanding was their own doing ( ), it did not come from

the weakness of the teacher.30 Moreover, many assumed that opposition to Jesus was not

something that developed through the course of his ministry but was rather present at the

outset.31 For it cannot be, Chrysostom and others supposed, that Galilean Jews would find over

time divine teaching unpersuasive. Instead, the rejection was part of a mysterious divine plan as

Paul discusses in Rom 9-1132 and befits the typology of salvation history: Jesus addressed a stiff

necked and rebellious people whose ancestors also opposed Moses and the prophets.33 Thus

28
E.g anonym., Const. ap. 6.2.5; Marcus Minucius Felix, Oct. 33; Lactantius, Inst. 4.10-
11; Cyril of Alexandria, Hom. Luc. 12; etc.
29
E.g. Cyprian, Idol. 6.11-12; Lactantius, Inst. 4.15; Eusebius, Dem. ev. 7.1. For further
discussion and additional texts see A. Lukyn Williams, Adversus Judaeos: A Birds-Eye View of
Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935).
30
Hom. Matt. 43.3 (PG 57:459 [my translation]).
31
Origen in his Comm. Jo. 6.151 suggests that the Jews who came to inquire about
Johns baptism (John 1:19-25) did not do so in good faith. Prosper of Aquitaine even argues that
God waited to send Jesus until the most evil and sinful generation had arisen, so that the power
of God to save some would be magnified. See Voc. Gent. 2.15 (ACW 14:115-16 [with my
modifications]): He rather chose the times which produced such people as would, in their wild
and willful malice, persist in carrying out the very counsels of Gods hands, and not because they
wished to be helpful but because they intended to do harm. Cf. Bede, Hom. ev. 2.6.
32
Hence it was predicted in the Scriptures. See e.g. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 49; Hippolytus,
Antichr. 58 (ANF 5:216: Moses knew beforehand that the people would reject and disown the
true savior of the world); Tertullian, Apol. 21; Eusebius, Dem. ev. 7.1; etc.
33
Origen, Cels. 2.75 (trans. Henry Chadwick; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1965), 123: In fact, I think that this is enough for anyone who wants an explanation of the Jews
disbelief in Jesus, that it was consistent with the behavior of the people from the beginning as
described in scripture. Athanasius thinks the Jews who opposed Jesus knew they were in the
wrong, see Decr. 1.1-2.

31
the whole may be preordained.34 So the cause of the fallout is not the fault of Jesus, and it

certainly did not generate a crisis in his confidence.35

2.2. GOSPELS, GAPS, AND IMAGINATION

As widespread as these three theological assumptions were, however, they should not

overshadow other clear antecedents to the theory of a Galilean crisis.

As will be seen in detail in Chapter 4, 19th-century proponents of a Galilean crisis will

read Gospel scenes as snapshots of a larger story, a story that required the intuition and

imagination of the historian to reconstruct in its entirety. This approach was possible because it

was well recognized that the Gospels, particularly the synoptics, are largely episodic and that

their chronologies are somewhat artificial. Thus, a Galilean crisis was constructed by reading

between the lines of the Gospels and suggesting various interconnections among pericopae.

Readers well before the 19th century had recognized that the Gospels were incomplete

and diversely ordered portraits of Jesus, and such knowledge affected the way the texts were

read. Moreover, such readings helped generate an interest in filling out missing detail in a Gospel

34
Theodoret of Cyrus, Prov. 10.60-61 (ACW 49:153): God did not come to this
decision as an afterthought but had so decreed from the beginning of time. Augustine, Hom.
77.2 in Sermons (51-94) on the New Testament (trans. Edmund Hill; Works of Saint Augustine
III/3; Brooklyn: New City Press: 1990), 317-18: (How can it be that) the Lord, knowing full
well why he had come, which was of course to have a Church among all nations, said that he had
only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel?...so it had been ordained, so presented
from the beginningbecause Christ Jesus had to come to the people of the Jews to be seen, to be
slain, and to win from among them those whom he had already foreknown. Rupert of Deutz,
Sup. Matt. 9.755-63 (ed. Hrabanus Haacke; CCCM 29; Turnhout: Brepols, 1979), 285-86 takes
Matt 11:27 (no one knows the father except the son and those to whom the son chooses to
reveal) to its logical extreme: Jesus himself chose those who were not accepted.
35
The study of Christian responses to the Jewish rejection of Jesus is, of course, its own
sub-discipline of history. See esp. Samuel Krauss, The Jewish-Christian Controversy: From the
Earliest Times to 1789 (ed. and rev. William Horbury; TSAJ 56; Tbingen: Mohr, 1995).

32
via ones knowledge of the others, the teachings of the Church, or some other matter.36 This

could take various forms: harmonizations, the posing of various backstories to certain pericopae,

generalizations about the course of Jesus career that made rational sense of the whole.

Papias brief reflections on Mark and Matthew (ca. 120 CE), which have stimulated much

discussion,37 are illustrative. Indeed, his admission that the Markan framework is based on

Peters ad hoc reminiscence and is therefore not a properly ordered composition () is

remarkable on a number of levels. But notable for our purposes is this: while Papias seems to

favor Matthew over Mark, he does not thereby disapprove of Marks Gospel because of its

organization.38 This betrays the interesting assumption that, while historical reliability of the

individual stories is unquestioned, their position in the overall chronology might not represent

the way things actually happened.39

Papias will share this sentiment with many after him. It is common to find assertions (or

assumptions) both that the Gospels are historical records of what Jesus actually said and did, and

comfortability moving things around in the Gospels and telling stories in a different order. A few

examples: (i) The first harmonizer of the Gospels, Tatian (ca. 175 CE), appears to have based his

harmony on a synthesis of Matthew and John, but at times he picks and chooses episodes with no
36
See Schildgen, Power and Prejudice, 44.
37
See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15. Cf. Adrien Delclaux, Deux tmoignages de Papias
sur la composition de Marc, NTS 27 (1981): 401-11; Ulrich H. J. Krtner, Papias von
Hierapolis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des frhen Christentums (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1983), 207-15; Watson, Gospel Writing, 124-31.
38
See Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 53-55; A. Stewart-Sykes, Taxei in
Papias: Again, JECS 3 (1995): 487-92. Contra Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses:
The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), 222-30,
who thinks Papias compares Mark to John.
39
Tertullian, Marc. 4.2 (SC 456:68 [my translation]): So what if they vary some in the
narrative order (si narrationum disposition uariauit), provided that they agree (conueniat) in the
crux of the faith.

33
apparent consternation.40 (ii) Probas Cento (ca. 350 CE) provides just a snapshot of the ministry,

but even then follows the Sermon on the Mount with the encounter with the Rich Young Man

and then Jesus walking on the water.41 (iii) Prudentius Cathemerinon (ca. 400 CE) briefly

touches on a great number of miracles but with no concern for chronology; at one point he skips

from the woman with a hemorrhage (Mark 5:25-34) to the Johannine Lazarus scene (John 11) to

Jesus walking on the water (Matt 14:22-33).42 (iv) Sedulius Carmen Paschale (ca. 425-50)

dwells on the ministry in much more detail than Proba and clearly imitates the Gospel narratives,

yet his books three and four catalogue the miracles of Jesus in an order that agrees with not one

40
Note J. Hamlyn Hills comments in Earliest Life of Christ Ever Compiled from the
Gospels, Being the Diatessaron of Tatian (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1894), 27: Tatian does not
seem to have regarded the evangelists as infallible in regard to the chronological order of events,
and has not hesitated in some cases to change their order for one which appeared to him more
suitable. Tatians preference for John and Matthew is likely due to their apostolicity; Tatian
seems more at ease displacing Lukan pericopae than any of the others. See further Harvey K.
McArthur, The Quest through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1966), 42-44; Warren S. Kissinger, The Lives of Jesus: A History and
Bibliography (New York; London: Garland Publishing, 1985), 5 (Tatian dealt quite freely).
This is not to say that Tatian did not have principles guiding his work; e.g. Theodor Zahn argued
long ago that Tatian seemed to arrange his chronology according to the Johannine Passovers. See
Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur
(Erlangen: Deichert, 1881), 249-61. Tjitze Baarda, : Factors in the
Harmonization of the Gospels, Especially in the Diatessaron of Tatian, in Gospel Traditions in
the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text and Transmission (ed. W. L. Petersen; CJA 3;
Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 133-54 argues that Tatians harmony was
motivated in part to show critics that contradictions among the Gospels could be explained.
41
Proba, Centro, 505, 531. For an English translation see Elizabeth A. Clark and Diane
F. Hatch, The Golden Bough, The Oaken Cross: The Virgilian Centro of Faltonia Betitia Proba
(Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), 12-95.
42
Prudentius, Cathemerinon 9. Cf. the reconfigured order in the anonym. Homerocentra
11-36: baptism; temptation; call of the twelve; Cana; summary of healings; Jairus daughter;
Centurions son; paralytic at Capernaum; paralytic at Jerusalem; the blind man from birth;
another blind man (Matt 9:27-31?); cleansing of the leper; Peters mother in law; exorcism in the
Decapolis; man with the withered hand; deaf man; Canaanite woman.

34
Gospel.43 (v) Later medieval harmonies of the Gospels, or hymns and poems about the life of

Christ, have a similar hermeneutical ease about rearranging.44 Ulrich Schmid can generalize:

The order of the Gospel texts is varied. This applies both for the sequence of various stories, as

well as for the collection of various narrative-details into one and the same narrative.45

To be sure, history in the modern sense is not the objective of these writings. Their

reorganizations stem in general from theological or pastoral concerns.46 The identity of Jesus is

not contingent on the particular historical ordering of pericopae, but is rather supplied by the
43
In the words of Carl P.E. Springer, The Gospel as Epic in Late Antiquity: The Paschale
Carmen of Sedulius (VCSup 2; Leiden et al.: Brill, 1998), 64, Sedulus skips back and forth from
Gospel to Gospel, selecting and discarding episodes as he pleases. Springer also notes that the
transitions in the Carmen are abrupt. He cares little about locating episodes in specific temporal
or scenic contexts (89). This is true, but Sedulus often connects pericopae with temporal
markers: post, inde, interea, etc.
44
The approach was highly influenced by Augustines De consensu evangelistarum, an
Old Latin Harmony (now lost; cf. William L. Petersen, Tatians Diatessaron, in Patristic and
Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen [eds. Jan Krans and Jozef
Verheyden; NTTS 40; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012]), 175-203 at 185-86), and the 6th-century
Codex Fuldensis. Cf. esp. Clement of Llanthonys 12th-century Unum ex Quattuor and Ludolph
of Saxonys 14th-century Vita Christi. Charles Abbott Conway, The Vita Christi of Ludolph of
Saxony and Late Medieval Devotion Centered on the Incarnation: A Descriptive Analysis
(Salzburg: Institut fur Englische Sprache und Literatur, 1976), 6, describes the latter as mosaic
like, and the same could be said of Clements work.
45
Ulrich Schmid, Lateinische EvangelienharmonienDie Konturen der
abendlndischen Harmonietradition, in Evangelienharmonien des Mittelalters (eds. Christoph
Burger; August den Hollander; Ulrich Schmid; STAR 9; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2004), 18-
40 at 35 (Die Anordnung der Evangelientexte ist verschiedenen. Dies gilt sowohl fr die
Abfolge verschiedener Erzhlungen als auch fr das Zusammenstellen verschiedener
Erzhldetails innerhalb ein und derselben Erzhlung).
46
So Origen, at a now famous section of his Commentary on John (Comm. Jo. 10.19 [FC
80:259]), regards it theologically significant that the Gospels have related what happened in this
place as though it happened in another, or what happened at this time as though at another time,
for this shows the reader not to rely on the mere letter. Cf. Samuel Laeuchli, The Polarity of the
Gospels in the Exegesis of Origen, CH 21 (1952): 215-24. Origens point here is often
misrepresented, however. It is not often the case that Origen expressly argues that an episode in
the Gospels is unhistorical. Here see Henri de Lubac, History and Spirit: The Understanding of
Scripture According to Origen (trans. Anne Englund Nash; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007),
116, 132.

35
liturgy, praxis, and theological reflection of the Church, in addition to the Gospels. It is the

presupposed knowledge of that Christ that permits exegetes to reorganize the Gospels in this

manner. One should also account for the diversity of genres here and their various expectations

(including poetica licentia).47 Moreover, some of these exegetes were just imitating what they

found in the canonical form of the Gospels. For in the Fourth Gospel we are told that only a

small fraction of the things Jesus said and did have been recorded (20:30; 21:25), and it takes no

synopsis to identify stories unique to particular Gospels and disagreements regarding the ones

they hold in common. Thus, if the Gospels themselves, inspired by God, do not present a

fictitious portrait of Jesus despite their selectivity and differences, so their interpreters could too

be selective.48

The point to emphasize, however, is simply this: these readers do not fear the charge of

misrepresenting the Gospels by changing the order of the stories. There is no suspicion that

fewer stories about Jesus might lead to less knowledge about him, or that differently ordered

miracles might muddle his image. The parts could stand apart from the whole and be pieced

47
See Michael Roberts on Christians borrowing classical conventions of paraphrase in
Biblical Epic and Rhetorical Paraphrase in Late Antiquity (ARCA 16; Liverpool: Francis
Cairns, 1985). There are different emphases even within whole works, such as the 14th-century
De gestis Domini Salvatoris by the Augustinian Simone Fidati. This massive 15 book work is
more topical than chronological, but in the big picture a rough chronology emerges: John the
Baptist; general life of Christ; miracles; parables; similitudes; vices; virtues; Sermon on the
Mount; discourses; passion; resurrection. There is great variation within these larger groupings.
See Mary Germaine McNeil, Simone Fidati and His De Gestis Domini Salvatoris: A Dissertation
(Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950), 74, 95.
48
Some, however, thought divergent chronologies required a choice. Gaius of Rome
(though linkage between Gaius and the Alogoi is disputed) looked for reasons to dismiss with the
Fourth Gospel on account of its use by the Montanists. See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.28.2; 4.20.3.
When reflecting on the claim by Matthew and Mark that Jesus went down to Capernaum after
being baptized, Gaius claimed: (!). See
Epiphanius, Pan. 51.21.15-16. See also 51.18.1 (John about the flight to Egypt). See
Grant, Earliest Lives, 28-29; Merkel, Widersprche, 34-37.

36
together in different ways with little overall consequence. This frequent practice of reorganizing

the Gospelsirrespective of the motives of the reader in questionfunctioned to normalize it so

as to be theologically acceptable. It was both consciously thought and unconsciously assumed

that, by virtue of the Gospels selective presentation of Jesus life, the interpreter was justified to

adjust and reorganize them.

In addition to these theological explanations for an atomistic and sometimes free

treatment of the Gospel frameworks, others had a more historical one which is nearer the logic of

the later crisis theory. Here Augustines De consensu evangelistarum is the most clear and

influential on late research.49 He notes when reflecting on seeming contradictions in the infancy

narratives:

We have to take notice of a fact which will also hold good for other like cases, and which
will secure our minds against similar agitation or disturbance in subsequent instances. I
refer to the circumstance that each evangelist constructs his own particular narrative on a
kind of plan which gives it the appearance (videatur) of being a series of events without
interruption. For, preserving a simple silence on the subject of those incidents of which
he intends to give no account (non vult dicere), he then connects those which he does
wish to relate with what he has been immediately recounting, in such a manner as to
make the recital seem continuous (ut ipsa continuo sequi videantur)(The Evangelist
seeks) to give the appearance of a connected series50

What Augustine means to say, without really saying it, is that the narrative presentation of each

Gospel is not wie es eigentlich gewesen. In particular, that at times the logical and/or historical

49
On Augustines influence on later harmony writing, see Christian Pesch, Ueber
Evangelienharmonien, ZKT 10 (1886): 225-244 at 238.
50
Augustine, Cons. 2.5.16 (NPNF1 6:108-9 [with my modifications]). Latin text edited
by Francisci Weihrich (CSEL 43; Vienna: sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1904),
98-99. See also 2.42.90 (on Luke 4s annunciation in Nazareth not mentioning a prior ministry in
Capernaum). Cf. Pesch, Ueber Evangelienharmonien, 230-31, 233; Watson, Gospel Writing,
30-31 and 36-37.

37
connection between individual pericopae is neither apparent nor reliable.51 For Augustine this

observation was helpful most of all for harmonizationit allowed him to insert material from

other sources into these historical gaps between stories.52 But the view also happens to be

fundamental to the theory of a Galilean crisis as it assumes that the connections between

pericopae are not reliable and that the historian must find an alternative explanation for the

transitions. What is more, in the absence of a reliable chronology, Augustine assumes that such

must be created by the reader on the basis of the general course, or historical outline, of the

ministry.53 This is not the major task of his Harmony, which is quite atomistic in general and

much more interested in theological issues.54 But he does indulge on occasion. At one point

51
Cf. Dionysius Bar Salibi, Comm. ev. 38 (Luke alone provides the historical sequence).
Note Ludolph in the proem. to his Vita Christi: I am not asserting that the order of events that
follows here is without doubt the historical one; for this cannot be stated by anyone. Cited in
Pesch, Ueber Evangelienharmonien, 241.
52
See, e.g. Cons. 2.5.14; 2.6.18; etc. It is common to find the claim that the Gospels work
together as if each contribute a part to a larger project. E.g. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.24.11.
Theodor of Heraclea explains that the triumphal entry in John differs from the Synoptics because
John leaves the left over stuff for others to speak of ( ).
See Fr. Comm. Jo. 183 (ed. Joseph Reuss; TUGAL 89; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966), 112.
See also Epiphanius, Pan. 51.4.11; 51.6.2. Cf. Markus Bockmuehl, The Making of Gospel
Commentaries, in The Written Gospel (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 274-95 at 285.
53
Tatian of course assumed the same, as is well known. Cf. Hill, Earliest Life, 31; Curt
Peters, Das Diatessaron Tatians: seine berlieferung und sein Nachwirken im Morgen- und
Abendland sowie der heutige Stand seiner Erforschung (OrChrAn 123; Rome: Pontificium
Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1939), 16-19.
54
At Cons. 2.21.52 Augustine says that it is not his task to investigate why the
Evangelists report the events in the order they do, but he thinks such would be a worthwhile
investigation. He notes (NPNF1 6:127): But as to the reason why the Holy Spirit.has left one
historian at liberty to construct his narrative in one way, and another in a different fashion, that is
question which any one may look into with pious consideration, and for which, by divine help,
the answer also may possibly be found. That, however, is not the object of the work which we
have taken in hand at present. McArthur, Quest through the Centuries, 53, is right that
Augustine was prepared to rearrange the order of the Gospels, but he was reluctant to do so
against their explicit statements of time or relationship.

38
Augustine observes that Matthew claims Jesus taught parables then went to Nazareth (13:1-58),

but that Mark reports that Jesus set out to the Sea of Galilee (Mark 4:1-41). Though Augustine

anticipates Greisbach in thinking Mark the breviator of Matthew,55 here he hints that the

aftermath of the story makes better sense historically in Mark than in Matthew.56 Of course

Augustine and later historians would disagree radically about what is commonsensical about

the course of the ministry.57 But there is an interest here in finding what Schweitzer would later

call an inner-logic to the stories.58 In this respect Brenda Schildgen is right to note that, in

Augustines production of a single evangelium, and his historicizing interest in the Gospels, he

would Ironicallyproduce a fascination with the life of Jesus that would blossom in later

centuries.59

55
Augustine, Cons. 1.2.4.
56
Augustine, Cons. 2.42.89.
57
There is a similar thought process in Apollinarius of Laodiceas work on John, though
his logic is not apparent given the fragments that have survived. For example, he notes that John
has preserved the temple action more precisely () than the Synoptics. See Fr.
Comm. Matt. 106 (ed. Joseph Reuss; TUGAL 61; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957), 36. Tatian
took the opposite positionwhich too is interesting; see discussion in Nicholas Perrin, The
Diatessaron and the 2nd c. Reception of John, in The Legacy of John: Second-Century
Reception of the Fourth Gospel (ed. Tuomas Rasimus; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 301-18 at
307.
58
See Ludolph of Saxonys attempt to explain why he sometimes goes beyond the
Gospels: for the sake of making the story more impressive I shall present the narrative to you as
though it had actually happened, or can be justly believed to have happened in accordance with
certain imaginative reconstructions which the mind variously apprehends. His reconstruction
thus relies on the imagination but can still be rationally defended. Passage cited in Shirley
Jackson Case, Jesus through the Centuries (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932), 263-
64. Ludolph continues to explain that such reconstructions are legitimate when in keeping with
faith and natural reason. Roberts, Biblical Epic, 127 suggests it was a common technique of
paraphrase to achieve narrative economy and a more rational or effective sequence of events.
59
Schildgen, Power and Prejudice, 68-69.

39
 In such attempts to rationalize the course of Jesus career, I have not identified a single

one that proposes some watershed point in the Galilean ministry. But there are notable precursors

to that move. One regards the supposition that certain pericopae presuppose a particular position

in the ministry.60 Later historians will often posit that certain stories assume a particular narrative

that may contradict the Gospels themselves. Ancient readers did likewise, and even with some of

the same texts. For example, nearly all later proponents of a Galilean crisis believe that Jesus

woe over Galilean cities (Q 10:13-15)61 presupposes a position at or near the end of the Galilean

ministry. The passage, it is said, expresses frustration over poor results, and is thought to imply a

backstory of rejection. This view is not entirely without precedent.62 Concerning these same

woes, Didymus the Blind reflects in passing in his Commentary on Zechariah: for after Jesus

had completed prodigious miracles ( ),

those from the cities Chorazin and Bethsaida, being Jews, did not repent, while the Tyrians and

60
One could mention here the later attempt of Johannes Gersons Monotessaron to
arrange material on the basis of shared geography. See discussion in Marc Vial, Zur Funktion
des Monotessaron des Johannes Gerson, in Evangelienharmonien des Mittelalters (eds.
Christoph Burger, August den Hollander and Ulrich Schmid; STAR 9; Assen: Royal Van
Gorcum, 2004), 40-72 at 46.
61
Luke 10:13-15 (NRSV): Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the
deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long
ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But at the judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and
Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be
brought down to Hades! Cf. Matt 11:20-24.
62
It looks as though some harmonizers thought the passage odd in its Matthean and
Lucan contexts. Juvencus Evangeliorum libri quattuor 2.509-60, which rather closely follows
Matthew at this point (9:10-38; 10:1, 5-39; 11:1-15), skips over the Galilean woes (along with
the saying about the children in the marketplace) and then resumes with Matt 11:25-30; 12:1-15,
22-37. There are many possible explanations, of course. But surely Roberts, Biblical Epic, 109,
is wrong in dismissing the issue by saying the passage is not essential to the Gospel narrative.
Roger P. H. Green, Latin Epics of the New Testament: Juvencus, Sedulius, Arator (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008), 34, suggests the omission may be due to the names of the cities.
But Juvencus provides geographical detail elsewhere (e.g. 3.176-77).

40
Sidonians would have done if these miracles had been done among them.63 Didymus summary

of the woes, and particularly his word choice (had completed from ), goes beyond

what the Gospels say about this text. The position of this saying in Matthew and Luke is not

especially dramatic, but Didymus treats the text as a reflection on completed work. He reads

the woe pericope not in its larger Matthean and Lucan contexts but rather in isolation and on its

own terms.

Similar and even more explicit is John Chrysostom:

Then he proceeds to upbraid () the cities; now that wisdom has been justified;
now that he has shown all the things that have been accomplished (
). Since, having failed to persuade them (
), he now proceeds to lament; which is a greatly terrifying thing. For he had shown
both his teaching by his words, and his wonder-working power by his signs. But since
they remain in their own unbelief, he now proceeds to upbraid.64
Here Chrysostom ascribes to the woe pericope a sense of completion65 and even a motive (e.g.

having failed to persuade), whereas the contexts of the Gospels provide no such clarity.66 And

the climactic nature of Chrysostoms paraphrase does not square with what is to come in

63
Comm. Zach. 3.84 (SC 84:660 [my translation]).
64
Hom. Matt 37.4 (PG 57:424 [my translation]).
65
Chrysostom does not, however, think the woe spells certain doom on the cities; the
objective is to get their attention. Cf. Paschasius Radbertus, Ex. Matt. ad loc. (ed. Bedae Paulus;
CCCM 56a; Turnhout: Brepols, 1984), 663: Ergo ciuitatibus Iudeorum quas exprobrat Dominus
ideo praedicatum est Euangelium et signa ostensa ut inexcusabiles essent (Therefore in the
cities of the Jews which the Lord upbraids had the gospel preached in them and signs shown in
order that they might be without excuse). See also Theophylact of Ohrid, En. Matt. ad loc.
66
Augustine Cons. 2.32.79 (NPNF1 6:140) suggests that here Luke may have recorded
these words in the strict consecution in which they were spoken by the Lord, while Matthew has
kept by the order of his own recollections. Perhaps the reason is that in Luke Jesus has already
left Galilee. Though Augustine also offers the possibility that the oracle was delivered on two
different occasions, and that both Evangelists are correct. Cf. the anonym. (possibly early 8th
century) Lib. quest. ev. ad loc. (ed. J. Rittmueller; CCSL 108F; Turnholt: Brepols, 2003), 213-14
(Matheus uero more suo recordatur).

41
Matthew.67 But in taking the pericope to tell a story larger than itself he is near the approach of

later Jesus critics, and even near the conclusions of later proponents of a Galilean crisis on this

passage.68

Treatment of the Parable of the Sower and its relatives presents another parallel to later

historical reflection on a Galilean crisis. The parable chapter occupies different positions in Mark

and Matthew.69 But some early readers suggested that Jesus spoke about the mystery of the

kingdom when he had been rejected by certain people.70 For Cyril of Alexandria, Jesus decision

to withhold the mystery of the kingdom was not a random act of predestination, but was rather

well deserved because certain members of Jesus audience were insolent and had wickedly

resisted his public teaching.71 Chrysostom reached a similar conclusion: from the beginning

(of his ministry) he did not speak to them in this way (with parables), but (rather) with much

clearness ( ); but because they turned themselves aside (

67
Cf. here too Ludolph, Vita Christi 1.57, which discusses this pericope alongside the
immediately preceding (children calling in the marketplace). He uses Isa 5:4 as commentary:
what else could I have done for these people?
68
Note the intensifying post in Rabanus Maurus, Ex. Matt. ad loc. (ed. B. Lfstedt;
CCCM 174; Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 332: quia post factas uirtutes et signa. Also Otfried of
Weissenberg, Gloss. Matt. ad loc. (ed. C. Grifoni; CCCM 200; Turnholt: Brepols, 2003), 161.
Otfried assumes that messengers have already been sent to these cities (in quas [cities] et
spiritales uenatores missi sunt), which does not agree with Matthew (but assumes Luke 9:1-6).
69
Cf. Mark 4:1-34 (early in the Galilean ministry); Matt 13:1-52 (later).
70
Perhaps such is the idea behind Ludolph, Vita Christi 1.64 in La grande vie de Jesus-
Christ (trans. Florent Broquin; 7 vols.; 2nd ed.; Paris: C. Dillet, 1883), 3:314: La premire
parabole (of the Sower), relative la semence jete en terre et dont le quart seulement porta du
fruit, figure la prdication de Jsus-Christ et des Aptres qui sadressrent indistinctement aux
Juifs bons et mchants; mais un petit nombre dentre eux embrassrent la foi, tandis que la
majeure partie resta dans linfidlit.
71
Cyril of Alexandria, Hom. Luc. 41 in Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke (trans.
R. Payne Smith; Astoria: Studion Publishers, 1983), 177. Cyril points to John 10:20 (He has a
demon and is insane, why do you listen to him?) as having occurred before the giving of the
parable.

42
 ), thereafter he speaks in parables.72 Jesus teaching strategy thus adapted

to meet the situation on the ground. Both exegetes, then, anticipate many promoters of the crisis

theory who will similarly suggest that Jesus began to teach in parables only at a later point in his

ministry. Their logic will be different: Jesus rationalized the rejection of his public proclamation

by saying the true meaning of his message was hidden in parables. But the general idea here is

the same.73 These earlier readers had already started to place and interpret certain episodes in

Jesus ministry in a larger narrative context, a context that was sometimes at odds with the

frames of the Gospels themselves.

A number of other writers similarly suggest that the rejection of Jesus occurred over a

period of time in a way unlike the Gospels report. In a way similar to the Diatessaron, the 13th-

century devotional work, Meditaciones vite Christi, divides the episode of Jesus annunciation in

Nazareth in Luke 4 into two: it first describes the welcome (e.g. Luke 4:22, all spoke well of

him) and then the rejection at a later point in the ministry.74 The decision to move the rejection

is surely informed by the placement of the Nazareth scene in Mark (6:1-6) and Matthew (13:54-

58), and we must remember that the text is devotional and makes no aim to be a historical life of

72
Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 45.1 (PG 58:472 [my translation]). Cf. Aquinas, Summa
3a.42.3 (reply). See also Irenaeus treatment of Matt 11:27 (a key text for the Gnostics in their
claims to possess Jesus esoteric teaching), which he claims is not a statement about the
hiddenness of Jesus teaching at all times, but rather functions to condemn those who did not
believe what was made visible to all. See Haer. 4.6.5. See also Tertullian, Res. 33; Archelaus (of
Caschar) apud Cyril, Cat. 6.27-29; Rabanus, Ex. Matt. (on 13:13).
73
The strategy was common and could achieve other aims as well. Faustus the
Manichean apparently thought that when Jesus said I have come not to destroy the law but to
fulfill it (Matt 5:17) he was not saying anything about the value of the Old Testament; he was
instead trying to calm the furor of the Jews. See Augustine, Faust. 19.1 (trans. Ronald Teske;
Works of Saint Augustine I/20; Hyde Park: New City Press: 1990), 237.
74
Pseudo-Bonaventure (John of Caulibus?), Meditaciones vite Christi 18.1-13 (ed. M.
Stallings-Taney; CCCM 153; Turnholt: Brepols, 1997), 92-93.

43
Jesus in the modern sense. But even then, the harmonization (esp. Tatians) seems to assume

that, when considering the reception of Jesus in a given city, it is more likely that the rejection

would come later.75 It is a common-sense approach to the issue of how Jesus ministry would

have unfolded.

The point is even clearer in Ludolphs 14th-century Vita Christi,76 a work which moves

the entirety of Luke 4 to a much later point in the ministry (1.65). Moreover, even though the

author follows Matthews chronology for the Galilean ministry more closely than the others, he

positions several controversy stories at a much later period in the ministry than they appear in

Matthew, and he gathers similar stories from the other Gospels as well. For example, the

controversy over picking grain on the Sabbath (1.71), healing the man with a withered on the

Sabbath (1.72), healing the blind and dumb demoniac (1.73; which the Pharisees attribute to the

power of Beelzebul), the request for a sign (1.74),77 and the woe against the Pharisees (1.76;

from Luke 11:37-54). He also places in this context the feeding of the five thousand, which

results in many disciples leaving Jesus (1.70). The upshot is that the first part of Jesus

ministry concludes with growing opposition.78

75
He may even have thought he had corroborating evidence elsewhere, as he says For
he did not begin with noise and pomp, but humbly and gradually (Non enim cepit cum boatu et
pompa, sed humiliter et paulatim). See Meditaciones vite Christi 18.42-43 (ed. M. Stallings-
Taney), 94.
76
For the Latin text see Vita Jesu Christi ex Evangelio et Approbatis ab Ecclesia
Catholica Doctoribus Sedule Collecta (ed. L. M. Rigollot; 4 vols.; Paris: Palme: Lebrocquy,
1878).
77
Ludolph seems aware of the chronological situation here, noting on the comparison
between Jews and the Ninevites that the former had not received him pendant trois ans of his
presence among them. See Vita Christi 1.74 (trans. Broquin), 4:6.
78
This massive work is broken into two parts: Part 1 includes the ministry of Jesus until
the feeding of the five thousand and other controversy stories, Part 2 commences with Caesarea
Philippi. The division at this point was intentional, as Ludolph notes that Christ at this point
44
 In all of these examples, then, we have attempts to reposition events and particular

themes in the Gospels that at once build on the Gospels but infer more than their original

narrative placements communicate, and are sometimes in tension with those placements. These

readings are not critiques of the Gospels, to be sure, and it is doubtful that any intended to assert

that the larger contexts of the Evangelists were misleading. But that is precisely the point. Some

stories and motifs, if treated in isolation, have been thought to imply alternative backstories. And

the general pattern of reading the Gospels as a unified story about Jesus life that nevertheless

lacked certain pieces to the puzzle justified and normalized such reading strategies.

To these examples about specific texts and issues we can add one more that concerns the

big picture: the generalization that Jesus ministry began with much success and only later did

his reception turn sour. The heresiologist Epiphanius, hardly a forerunner of liberal Protestant

scholarship, offers this assessment. In De Incarnatione we find undeveloped the theory of a

period of Zustimmung and then a period of opposition:

In the eighteenth year of Herod also called Agrippa, Jesus began to proclaim (and after he
received the baptism of John). And he proclaimed an acceptable year (
), being opposed by no one ( ), neither by
Jews nor by Greeks nor by Samaritans nor by anyone else. Then, being opposed, he
proclaimed ( ) a second year.79
The division of the ministry into these two periods does not clearly emerge from any Gospel as a

whole. But it is a convenient thematic organization of the ministry that is not entirely lacking

textual evidence. For despite the fact that each of the Gospels presents opposition to Jesus at a

begins to speak of his passion. Other historians have recognized the significance of Ludolph on
dividing the ministry precisely here; see Case, Jesus through the Centuries, 261-62; Mary
Bodenstedt, The Vita Christi of Ludolphus the Carthusian: A Dissertation (Washington D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press, 1944), 96-97. See also Schildgen, Power and Prejudice,
73.
79
Epiphanius, Inc. 2.5-6 in his Panarion (ed. Karl Holl; GCS 25; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,
1915), 229 (my translation). See also Pan. 51.25.1-8; 51.27.4.

45
very early point in the ministryindeed, at the very beginning in JohnMarks Gospel in

particular describes a brief flurry of teaching, healing, and widespread popularity before the first

mention of controversy.80 Such did not escape the notice of other early readers.81 To be sure,

some factors that contribute to Epiphanius reading are not shared by later questers. For one, it

seems that Epiphanius gets his one year by a rather literal rendition of the acceptable year

from Isa 61:2 (cited in Luke 4:19), and, further, he may be reacting to those who thought Lukes

acceptable year meant that Jesus ministry only lasted one year in its entirety.82 Moreover,

Epiphanius nowhere suggests that this change in reception led to a moment of crisis for Jesus

80
Joel Marcus has described Mark 1:16-45 as the honeymoon period. See Mark 1-8: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New Haven; London: Yale
University Press, 2000), 177 (HereJesus human audience consists wholly of friends and
neighbors, who receive him with open arms).
81
Note Proba, Centro, 456-62, describes the beginning of Jesus ministry thusly (trans. in
Clark, Golden Bough, 67):
Through the noble cities the talk winged.
And men convened; to all was one design:
Following him to whichever lands he wished
To escort them on the sea. Many besides,
The folk of no great name, or fame,
Came running with deafening din and mobbed him,
Crowding in. Their hearts beat wild with joy;
Now the multitude contained him in
Their midst;
See also Theodoret of Cyrus, Prov. 10.25; anonym. Homerocentra 15 (SC 437:235): Tous, dans
la foule, Ladmiraient qui savanait, adolescents de prime jeunesse et vieillards aux tempes
grisonnantes, boiteux, rids, louchant des yeux, suppliants, lorsque lun deux a commis
transgression ou faute.
82
We know of such a view from Irenaeus, Haer. 2.22.1-3; Clem. Hom. 17.19; Clement of
Alexandria, Strom. 1.21; Origen, Hom. Luc. 32.5; idem, Princ. 4.5.

46
for that conclusion would violate his Christology and much else. But even so: Epiphanius betrays

an interest to offer a logical, thematic summary of the ministry as a whole, and he relies on some

of the same textual material that later critics will also take special note of.

For readings such as these, then, we must disagree with R. M. Grants conclusion that

once (readers) had decided not only that Jesus himself was the divine logos but also that the

sources for his life were written under divine inspiration, all the presuppositions which might

make a biographical interest possible had disappeared.83 For while it is true that the nature of

the biographical interest was quite different in the modern period, earlier readers of the Gospels

were also very interested in why Jesus spoke and acted as he did, and tried to use their

imaginations to fill in the many blank spots in the Gospel narratives. Their explanation for the

why presupposed certain contextual and theological factors not shared by many of the 19th-

century researchers, and thus did not require a crisis to make the pieces of the Gospels fit

together.

2.3. REJECTION, DISAPPOINTMENT, AND FEAR

It is further significant that, despite the high Christology of the creeds and their implications for

Jesus omniscience and divine will, some readers still concluded that Jesus was indeed repelled

by his contemporaries, at times disappointed, and even afraid.84 There were prominent

83
Grant, Earliest Lives, 2.
84
Some actively promoted the idea that Christ experienced dolor and tristitia as essential
to the incarnation. See esp. Peter Lombard, discussed in Marilyn McCord Adams, What Sort of
Human Nature? Medieval Philosophy and the Systematics of Christology (Milwaukee:
Marquette University Press, 1999), 22-23. However, for Peter this sorrow was still voluntary and
not necessary. On sadness see Ambrose. Trin. 2.7.

47
theological trajectories in the opposite direction,85 but when these humbling views of Jesus

appear they presuppose a similar treatment of key issues and even specific texts that become

significant for the theory of a Galilean crisis. The reading habit that helped generate these

interpretations, and in turn pass on their influence to later readers, was simply an interest in

divining the motives of Jesus actions, as the Gospels so often fail to provide such information.

Though not often admitted as such, it was common for readers to use their imaginations to

discern why Jesus did what he did, which involved drawing parallels, either implicitly or

explicitly, between Jesus actions and normal human experience and emotion.

In contrast to the theological tendency outlined in section 2.1 to explain Jesus rejection

by ascribing blindness or ignorance to his opponents, there were some readers who did not share

the Christology requisite for such a conclusion, and thus they read the Gospels with different

eyes.86 In fact, some found Jesus rejection proof that he was a sham, which is the view that

appears in the Talmud and in other Jewish sources.87 Many of these reflections on Jesus,

85
Via views such as e.g. (i) Hilary, Trin. 10.55 (Later Christian Fathers, 141), who
asserted that Grief does not come within the experience of the Word of God, nor tears within
that of the Spirit. (ii) Anselms defense of the necessity of the Deus homo includes a rejection of
the view that Christ also experienced human unhappiness. See Cur Deus Homo 2.12. (iii)
Aquinas argued that when Christ was troubled or distressed he had assumed the affect of such
emotions, a sadness that began but was not perfected (tristitia removetur a Christo secundum
passionem perfectam; fuit tamen in eo initiata), so that there was no deficiency of reason in him.
See Summa 3a.15.6 (reply) (ed. Liam G. Walsh; vol. 49 of Summa Theologiae), 208.
86
Gnostics liked the idea that Jesus was rejected for their own reason: it confirmed the
esoteric nature of truth: unnoticed, unknown, obscure, and disbelieved. See Hippolytus, Haer.
8.3 (ANF 5:120).
87
Cf. b. Sanh. 43a; b. Gi. 57a. See Clemens Thoma, Die Christen in rabbinischer Optik:
Heiden, Hretiker oder Fromme?, in Christlicher Antijudaismus und jdischer Antipaganismus:
Ihre Motive und Hintergrnde in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (ed. Herbert Frohnhofen;
Hamburg: Steinmann & Steinmann, 1990), 23-49.

48
however, are quite detached from the Gospels and not particularly helpful for our project.88 But

the critics Celsus and Julian are another matter. In Julians treatise Against the Galileans, he lists

a series of miracles that Jesus was said to perform and notes that Jesus still failed to persuade his

contemporaries even if one grants that these miracles occurred. Julians critique here is not that

myth and fiction overlay the Gospels to make Jesus seem greater than he was (though he makes

that claim elsewhere). His point is that, even to grant such wondrous claims about Jesus,

Christians still have to explain the upshot that few followed him at the end.89 Even the Christian

version of the story, he says, is a story of failure.

Julian points not to a moment in the ministry, or a crisis of rejection, but the final

outcome. Julians predecessor Celsus went further and was more explicit in his use of the

Gospels. He, like Julian, asked rhetorical questions about the ministry in general such as, Have

you forgotten that while he lived this Jesus convinced nobodynot even his own disciples? and

further, What god has ever lived among men who offers disbelief as the proof of his divinity?90

But the texts he drew on at times to prove the point are remarkable. In the words of Origen:

88
Though note the anonym. 13th-century Jewish apologetic Niaon Vetus 174, which
has this in response to Jesus claim he was sent only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel
(Matt 15:24): (If Jesus) came to the world only to forgive the transgressions of Jewish sinners,
why did he cause them to sin and to stumble and to be blinded if he really came to forgive and
pardon Israel? The implication is that Jesus failed in this task. See David Berger, The Jewish-
Christian Debate in the Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Niaon Vetus with an
Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1979), 184. See also Christoph Ochs, Matthaeus Adversus Christianos (WUNT 350;
Tbingen: Mohr, 2013), 142, 161 (on Joseph ben Nathans Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne).
See Julians Against the Galileans (ed. and trans. R. Joseph Hoffmann; Amherst:
89

Prometheus Books, 2004), 118-19.

90
See On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians (trans. R. Joseph
Hoffmann; New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 65, 68. Origen responded that the
disciples wavered not because they did not believe Christ but because they had not been fully
disciplined (Cels. 2.39).

49
 (Celsus) censures Jesus, saying of him such things as, (Jesus) threatens and rebukes on
light matters ( ) as when he says, Woe to you, and I tell
you beforehand. For in such words he openly concedes that he is unable to persuade
( ); and this would not befit a god, not even a sensible person.91

The passage intrigues on two levels. The first regards the assumption that certain features of

Jesus message deviate from other things that he said. Celsus in general finds Jesus ethical

teaching uninspiring and unoriginal,92 but here he has deeper problems with the threats,

rebukes, woes, and predictions of what is to come in particular. To his mind, these latter

features of the tradition bespeak a lack of self control on Jesus part: unlike the bioi of other

famous men who exemplified the virtue of apatheia, Jesus appears mutable, weak, and succumbs

to his circumstances.93 Necessary for this comparison is the grouping of certain texts that appear

to resemble (what later critics will call) the judgmental and eschatological strands of the

tradition. As will be seen in greater detail in later chapters, this same compartmentalizing is

characteristic of most reconstructions of a Galilean crisis and the experiences of the Q people.

The second point concerns the way that Celsus interprets scenes in the Gospels that

threats, rebukes, woes, and predictions recall to mind.94 For the threats and woes one thinks in

particular of the woe over Galilean cities mentioned above, in addition to other cases (probably

also the woe against the Pharisees in Matt 23). Celsus claims that these episodes reflect a failure
91
Origen, Cels. 2.76 (PG 11:911d [my translation]).
92
See Hoffmanns introduction in On the True Doctrine, 41.
93
E.g., the Pythagorean wonderworker Apollonius of Tyana never deviates from script
and is always calm and collected. See e.g. Vit. Apoll. 1.13, 23; 3.43. On consistency in
characterization see L.V. Pitcher, Characterization in Ancient Historiography, in A Companion
to Greek and Roman Historiography (ed. John Marincola; 2 vols.; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007)
1:102-117 esp. 103-104.
94
On Celsus knowledge of the Gospels see John Granger Cook, Some Hellenistic
Responses to the Gospels and Gospel Traditions, ZNW 84 (1993): 233-54 at 234-39. Cook
thinks that Porphyry knew the Gospels even better than Celsus; see The Interpretation of the
New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Tbingen: Mohr, 2000), 28.

50
of Jesus to achieve his aims; they are, as he says, evidence that Jesus was unable to persuade. 95

Not only does this view imply that these threats, rebukes, woes, and predictions come from a

later period in the ministry after Jesus made his general offer, Celsus here psychologizes these

passages (if one may use that term here). He provides a motive where one is lacking in the

Gospels. Later questers and reconstructors of the Q people96 will do the same. They will also

assume that, whether it be the historical Jesus or an early community of his followers, the

inability to persuade led to a change of theological tone: the ethical teacher became a prophet

of doom.97

Explanations like these were, of course, anathema for many Christian exegetes. But, even

then, some Christians were able to identify genuine rejection and disappointment on the part of

Jesus via the notion that his audience had free will.98 In this case, Jesus, like God, desires that all

be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. But the divine desire is, paradoxically, subject

to the vicissitude of human response.99 The issue is relevant because free will allowed some

95
Origen in response argued that there were even more harsh words given in the Old
Testament (he notes the covenant curses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy), and claims that these
passages as well as Jesus woes intend to spur people on to conversion, and thus Jesus speaks as
a healer ( ). See Cels. 2.76 (PG 11:915a).
96
See also Cels. 7.9.
97
It seems that others too identified the implications that Celsus draws from such
passages and worked against them. Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 76-82), for example, suggests
that Jesus admonitions and warnings of judgment were not a deviation from his ethical teaching,
but rather integral to it; they intended to arouse the mind and bring man to his senses (FC
23:71). And Jerome, Comm. Matt. 3.17, assures his reader concerning Matt 17:17 (You faithless
and perverse generation, how much longer must I be with you?) that Jesus was not overcome by
frustration.
98
Cf. Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of
Justification (2nd ed.; New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 17-22.
99
As Gregory of Nyssa summed it up in Or. cat. 30 (LCC 3:308): God left something
under our own control and of which each of us is the sole masterthe will. See also Lactantius,
Inst. 4.11 (ANF 7:110): Since God is kind and merciful to His people, He sent Him to those
51
readers to affirm things that, given other christological proclivities, we might not expect them to

affirm. The situation parallels treatments of God grieving over rejection of the covenant or

human sinfulness in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Some theologians seem to affirm the

divine grief when it functions to accent human responsibility for going astray.100 Such

disappointment does not impinge on Gods omnipotence as much as it highlights Gods mercy

and love for all.

Some Christian readers also affirmed particular experiences and emotions in Jesus when

it served to stress his compassionate nature or to heighten the culpability of those who refused to

follow. These perspectives often emerge in consideration of particular themes or scenes in the

Gospels later important for the crisis theory. Three examples are especially noteworthy. The first

is a general perspective on the ministry as whole which assumes that, while the cross and

resurrection was the definite telos, the degree to which Jesus was accepted or rejected during the

ministry was not fixed.101 In other words, the saving death of Jesus was certain to occur, but the

very persons whom He detested, that He might not close the way of salvation against them
forever. Rather, He desired to give them a free opportunity to follow God. So, they could either
gain the reward of life if they followed Himor else they would incur the penalty of death by
their own fault if they rejected their King.
100
E.g. Opus Imperfectum 46 in Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (trans. James A.
Kellerman; ed. Thomas C. Oden; 2 vols.; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2010), 2:365-66: God is
saddened not for his own loss but for our destructionJust as a kindly king, hearing criminal
people, pronounces the sentence of death against them because the law forces him to, but yet he
pours forth tears for them because his mercy urges him to, and he wants to help them and yet
cannot, since righteousness opposes him
101
Note e.g. Bede, Hom. ev. 1.8 in Homilies on the Gospels (2 vols.; trans. Lawrence T.
Martin and David Hurst; Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1991), 1:79: The Jews whom he
had chosen as his own people, among whom he had reveled the hidden mystery of knowledge of
himself.among whom he showed himself incarnate as he had promisedthese people for the
most part refused to accept him when he came. Not everyone refused; otherwise, no one would
have been saved, and his incarnation would have been in vain. Cf. Tertullian, Praescr. 3;
Athanasius, H. Ar. 8.67; Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 47.

52
extent of his reception during his public ministry, or even the timing of his death, was subject to

human decision.102 Indeed we are far from a crisis here, but affirmed is that the rejection of

Jesus had an impact on the way he carried out his ministry. Even if the Galilean crowds and

opponents of Jesus are to some degree pawns in a divine game, Jesus responds to their moves.103

The second and third examples concern particular texts: the rejection at Nazareth (Mark

6:1-6 and par.), and the occasions on which Jesus lamented over Jerusalem (esp. Luke 19:41-44;

see also 13:34-35 and Matt 23:37-39). At Nazareth many readers find confirmation of the

blindness and ignorance of Jesus opponents as discussed above.104 But others claim that Jesus

success, and even his miracle working power, were at times subject to the faith of his

audience.105 John Cassian wrote, (Sometimes) the unfathomable depth of Christs goodness was

102
See Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 66.2; Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. Jo. 7.30. Both thinkers
and many others protest the idea that Jesus ministry was controlled by fate. Cyril, Comm. Jo.
7:1, 9-10 (vol. 1 of Commentary on John; ed. Joel C. Elowsky; trans. David R. Maxwell;
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2013), 264, says that Jesus knew the Gospel would go to the
Gentiles, but he waited for the opportune time: He neither wholly brings punishment on those of
Israel ahead of time nor wholly gives himself to Galilee before the saving cross(so that he
could) justly and for good reason withdraw from his love toward them. For contrary views see
Cat. Marc. 3:7-12 (ed. and trans. Lamb), 258: He (Jesus) controlled the timing of the Passion.
Aquinas, Summa 3a.46.9 (reply) expressly denies that the timing of Jesus death was variable.
103
Cf. Jerome, Pelag. 2.14 (Jesus departure to Tyre and Sidon is evidence he could not
do as he wished). Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 40.2 (NPNF1 10:260) remarks in light of opposition
to Jesus in Matthew 12: For His desire indeed was to heal in their presence; but since they thrust
Him away, not even against this did He contend. Ludolph explains in Vita Christi 1.41 (trans.
Broquin), 2:428 that Jesus sent the healed leper to the Jerusalem priests pour appeler les prtres
la foi, et, dans le cas dincrdulit pour leur enlever toute excuse, ordonne au lpreux doffrir
un prsent qui devait leur servir de tmoignage (my italics).
104
Cf. e.g. Hilary, Comm. Matt. 14.2; Peter Chrysologus, Hom. 48.2; Radbertus, Ex.
Matt. ad loc.; anonym., Lib. quest. ev. ad loc. (ed. J. Rittmueller; CCSL 108F; Turnholt: Brepols,
2003), 250; Otfried of Weissenberg, Gloss. Matt. ad loc. (ed. C. Grifoni; CCCM 200; Turnholt:
Brepols, 2003), 194; anonym. (10-11th century) Comm. Matt. ad loc. (ed. Bengt Lfstedt; CCCM
159; Turnholt: Brepols, 2003), 132.
105
On the necessity of human response see Origen, Comm. Matt. 10.19; Gregory of
Nazianzen, Or. 30.10.

53
so thwarted that it was said: And Jesus could do there no mighty work because of their

unbelief. So the bounty of God is actually curtailed temporarily according to the receptivity of

our faith.106 He is not alone in this view.107 The implications of this reading of the Nazareth

episode are very different than those drawn by later historians, to be sure. For Cassian the

rejection does not cause or contribute to an unexpected crisis in the ministry; it is rather

emblematic of the nature of faith and the relationship between the individual and God in all times

and places. But the underlying interpretation of the passage in both views is more similar than

different. In Nazareth we deal with a real rejection when Jesus might have hoped otherwise.

Moreover, some thought the tears shed over Jerusalem were genuine and that his desire

to gather Jerusalem was thwarted (e.g. How long have I desired to gather your children

togetherbut you did not desire it!).108 Some made Jesus weeping (alongside his other

106
John Cassian, Conf. 13.15 (ACCS 2:80). Cassian was accused by some of
Semipelagianism. Be that what it may, in the context of this comment Cassian seems to assume
that God imparted faith to individuals in different degrees, which explains the diverse ways Jesus
called people in the Gospels.
107
Though of course there is strong opposition to this reading. See Jerome, Comm. Matt.
2.13 (it is not that he was unable); Theophlact in Aquinas Catena (trans. Newman, 2:107):
What, however, is here expressed by He could not, we must take to mean, He did not choose,
because it was not that He was weak, but that they were faithless; He does not therefore work
any miracles there, for he spared them, lest they should be worthy of greater blame.
108
Note Clem. Hom. 3.19; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.37.1 (ANF 1:518): the scene set forth the
ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning,
possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily,
and not by compulsion of God. See also Eusebius in Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems
and Solutions (ed. Roger Pearse; Ipswich: Chieftain: 2010), 379; Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 64.4;
Augustine, Civ. 14.9 (the hard-heartedness of the Jews moved him to sorrowful anger);
anonym., Opus Imperfectum 26; Paschasius Radbertus, Ex. Matt. ad loc. (ed. Bedae Paulus),
1144 (in vain Christ here grants affection, and, without reaping the fruit, assumes flesh as a
weak hen in order that he might gather them under the wings of his teaching [my
translation]); Ludolph, Vita Christi 2.28.

54
emotions) merely pedagogical (and hence feigned),109 but others did not. In Medieval scholastic

theology, Hugh of St. Victors early 12th-century De quatuor voluntatibus in Christo (On the

Four Wills of Christ)110 made it possible for thinkers such as Bonaventure to claim that Christ

genuinely wept in his will of piety (which seeks mercy) while his divine will sought justice (and

hence destruction).111 It is also significant that, when Jesus speaks about how long he had

desired to gather the children of the holy city, many feel it necessary to provide a backstory.

Most who do so recall the work of the pre-incarnate Christ in biblical history and make the

passage a prophetic critique about Israels constant disobedience.112 So the failure of Jesus

desire is not crisis inducing because Jerusalems refusal is consistent with its past behavior. But

there is an affirmation here that Jesus wishes did not come to pass, and that there is backstory in

the verb desired.

These issues of rejection and disappointment also emerged in debates about the humanity

of Jesus. Arian exegetes searched far and wide for proof that Jesus had a creaturely existence,

and to find evidence of disappointment, sadness, or fearalongside ignorancewas one of their

109
Cf. e.g. Hilary, Trin. 10.55, says Jesus wept but did not grieve or experience sorrow.
This is consistent with Hilarys view expressed elsewhere that Jesus felt no pain during his
passion (10.23, 35). Cf. Madigan, Passions of Christ, 53-55. On weeping see also Chrysostom,
Hom. Matt. 78.4; Sedulus, Carmen Paschale 4.276-78. For discussion of Athanasius see Aloys
Grillmeier, From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) (vol. 1 of Christ in Christian Tradition;
trans. John Bowden; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), 315.
110
Hugh distinguished in Christs human will three different operations (the will of
reason, the will of piety, and the will of the flesh) which allowed that, in this hierarchy of wills,
not each will desired the same thing. See Gondreau, Passions of Christs Soul, 73-76; Madigan,
Passions of Christ, 79.
111
Bonaventure claimed that, while there was difference within Christs hierarchy of
wills in terms of the objects desired, there was conformity (conformitas) in terms of the
manner in which he desired them. See Adams, What Sort of Human Nature?, 20; Barnes,
Christs Two Wills, 89-112.
112
Cf. e.g. Apollinarius, Fr. Comm. Matt. 121; Cyril of Alexandria, Hom. Luc. 100;
Radbertus, Ex. Matt. ad loc.; anonym., Lib. quest. ev. ad loc; etc.

55
primary aims.113 As is well known, the so called Arian controversy was in many ways an

exegetical debate over particular texts in the Gospels.114 Arians claimed that a good number of

passages confirmed their suspicion that Jesus had a different nature than the Father, a nature that

was subject to change and could endure the pains necessary to achieve salvation.115 Proto-

orthodox/orthodox theologians claimed that the same texts confirmed the reality Jesus human

nature (contra Docetists) but in no way compromised attributes of the deity such as omniscience

and immutability.116 In any case, frequently these de-divinizing or humanizing experiences were

so thoroughly discussed that there developed a near formulaic list of them. The more

frequently mentioned include hungering, thirsting, sleeping, and something pertaining to

Gethsemane (e.g. sweating, fearing, or doubting).117 While these discussions do not mention a

particular moment of crisis during the ministry of Jesus, they do recall particular scenes in the

Gospels that would later become instrumental in the theory of a crisis.

One striking example appears in a fragmentary work of Hippolytus on the Psalms where

he mentions, alongside hungering, thirsting, and many other things, that Jesus flees in fear

113
Cf. Athanasius, C. Ar. 1.35 on the Word being alterable ().
114
See T. E. Pollard, The Exegesis of Scripture and the Arian Controversy, BJRL 41
(1959): 414-29; James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 186; Sara Parvis, Christology in the Early Arian
Controversy: The Exegetical War, in Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
(LNTS 348; ed. Andrew T. Lincoln and Angus Paddison; London; New York: T & T Clark,
2007), 120-37.
115
So the thesis of the important work by Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh, Early
Arianism: A View of Salvation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), esp. 1-43.
116
Cf. Moloney, Approaches to Christs Knowledge, 40-41. Though note the
anonymous Commentary on the Psalms (4th century?), which suggests that Christs soul did not
share the immutability of the Godhead and was subject to human weakness. See Grillmeier,
Apostolic Age to Chalcedon, 363.
117
E.g. Hippolytus, Haer. 10.29; Tertullian, Prax. 27.6; Hilary, Trin. 9.74; Epiphanius,
Pan. 69.19.7; Gregory of Nyssa, Or. cat. 9; John of Damascus, De fide 3.20; etc.

56
( ).118 It is difficult to know exactly the episode(s) in the Gospels that Hippolytus

has in mind. But it is certain that flees in fear refers to the physical movement of Jesus from a

certain place to another, and hence suggests that Jesus on one occasion or many departed not of

his own volition but because of some threat to him.119 This is interesting because, while nowhere

do the Gospels name fear the motive of any movement of Jesus, it is exactly what many later

Jesus questers will conclude and link to a crisis: Jesus leaves for Gentile dominated Tyre and

Sidon because of Jewish rejection, from Galilee because the people want to make him king, for

Jerusalem because Herod wants to kill him. So there is a close parallel here in terms of the

attempt to divine a motive for Jesus movements, and the reliance on normal human experience

to fill in the gaps.

The Hippolytus fragment has a notable parallel in Athanasius Against the Arians. The

bishop writes:

Therefore when he is said to hunger and thirst and to toil and not to know, and to sleep,
and to weep, and to ask, and to flee (), and to be born, and to decline the cup,
and in a word to undergo all that belongs to the flesh, let it be said, as is congruous, in
each case, Christ then hungering and thirsting for us in the flesh, and being exalted too,
and born, and growing in the flesh; and fearing and hiding (
) in the flesh; and saying, If it be possible let this cup pass from me, and
being beaten, and receiving, for us in the flesh; and in a word all such things for us in
the flesh.120

Athanasius refers to such scenes in the Gospels because many were Arian prooftexts. So it is

reasonable to think that Arians did, indeed, take some of Jesus movements (fleeing and

118
Hippolytus, Fr. Ps. 2 apud Theodoret of Cyrus, Er. 173 (ed. Gerard H. Ettlinger;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 156.
119
Here also Celsus according to Origen, Cels. 2.10 (PG 11:811b [my translation]):
Jesus hid most disgracefully and ran away (
). Origen says that anyone who claims as much is worthy of reproach.
120
Athanasius, C. Ar. 3.34 (NPNF2 4:412 [with my modifications]). Greek text in PG
26:396b.

57
fearing and hiding) as evidence of creatureliness and weakness. Fleeing may refer to John

6:15 where the people try to make Jesus king by force and he runs away ( is not used

here, though the Vulgate will read fugit),121 and hiding certainly refers to John 12:36. But both

echoes go beyond what the Gospels explicitly say. John 12:36 merely mentions that Jesus

departed and hid from them, it says nothing of fear. Assigning such humbling motives to

Jesus movements was in fact critiqued by some,122 and analyzed in different terms by others,123

so we know that it was a live issue.

121
John 6:15 is certainly in mind in Hilary, Tract. Ps. 53.7 (ed. Antonius Zingerle; CSEL
22; Vindobonae; Prague: F. Tempsky; Lipsiae: G. Freytag, 1891), 140 (my translation): Jesus
was hungry, thirsty, slept, became tired, had to run away from an impious group (impiorum
coetus fugit) See the discussion in Augustine, Hom. Jo. 25.4.
122
Pseudo-Chrysostom discusses the flights of Christ in one of his homilies (SC
48:143). The author questions why Jesus would flee the Jews when the purpose of his ministry
was the passion itself. He says that the ignorant have called this mystery (of fleeing) cowardice
( ); but, instead, the fleeing was due to
observation of the concourse of dates ( ). In other
words, Jesus flees because he waits for the predetermined time.
123
Origen, Comm. Matt. 10.23; 11.16; idem, Hom. Jo. 18.201-202. Chrysostom, Hom.
Matt. 14.1 (PG 57:217 [my translation]) explains that Jesus returned to Galilee on account of
John the Baptists enemies: But observe for me carefully how at every time he is about to depart
to the Gentiles, he has the reasons ( ) given him by the Jews. The view that Jesus
moved because of the response of certain people is itself is an interesting parallel to later work
on Jesus, but fear does not appear to be a factor here for Chrysostom. Theophlact in Aquinas
Catena (trans. Newman, 2:138) similarly states: seeing that the Jews were incredulous, He
(Jesus) enters into the country of the Gentiles, for the Jews being unfaithful, salvation turns itself
to the Gentiles. Bede, Hom. ev. 1.22 (trans. Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst, 1:217-18)
says the journey to Tyre and Sidon was sparked by the fact that scribes and Pharisees, coming
from Jerusalem, assailed the Lord and his disciples, making a great outcry because of their lack
of faith, and [Jesus] soon left them, having rebuked them with the invective they deserved
According to Ludolph, Vita Christi 1.46, Remi of Auxerre (9th century) suggested that Jesus
departed whenever he was pressed upon by the crowd and needed refuge.

58
 Other lists of Jesus human experiences expressly mention sadness or

disappointment, which probably refer to weeping scenes or even the Galilean woes.124 It is not

always clear. The important thing common to all is the attempt to discern Jesus mental or

emotional motive for various activitieswhich becomes a fully justified and well-established

habit of reading. Therein we find not the identification of some crisis in the ministry, but some

of its prerequisites.

2.4. CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT

Later chapters will explore the ways in which 19th-century critics divided the ministry of Jesus

into different periods of activity by attempting to resolve perceived theological tensions and

contradictions in the Gospel tradition. Critics who saw a disparity between Jesus ethical

teaching and his proclamation of judgment and the near end, for instance, would often resolve

this by positioning the ethical material in the first period of the ministry and the eschatology

and judgment in the next. As such, Jesus was thought to develop over the course of his ministry,

and often a crisis scenario was significant for producing this change of mind. It is often said that

such developmental Lives of Jesus are a distinctly modern phenomenon. But this is

misleading. It is true that many denied outright any contradiction in the Gospels. Chromatius of

Aquileia could state univocally of the Gospels that in nullosibi dissentiunt (in nothing do

they disagree with each other),125 and the sentiment is not uncommon. Moreover, and as

explored above, given certain theological underpinnings, it was absurd for many Christian

124
E.g. Irenaeus, Fr. 52; Epiphanius, Pan. 69.51.7; 77.30.3-5; Jerome, Comm. Matt. 4 (on
23:37); idem, Hom. Ps. 108.31; Augustine, Div. quaest. LXXXIII 80.3; etc.
125
Chromatius of Aquileia, Tract. Matt. prolog. 3 (ed. R. Etaix and J. Lemarie; CCSL
9A; Turnholt: Brepols, 1974), 186.

59
exegetes to think that the omniscient Jesus would develop or gradually understand the nature of

his mission as it went along. However, some early readers explored the same issues in the

Gospels that later historians would label contradiction or evidence of periodization in the

ministry.126 Their examinations of many of these texts also lead to notions of development or

even change, but with a few important differences.127

Most study of the development of Jesus in particular focused on a single text: Luke

2:52 (And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in the favor of both God and people).128

The passage was another linchpin for the Arians and lead to some fantastical exegesis by proto-

orthodox/orthodox readers. Readings were so various that Aelred of Rievaulx (12th century)

could remark: The number and the verbosity of comments which this (passage) has raised is

equal to the variety of opinions of their authors.129 The most common reading was that Christ

grew in age and size (the things proper to the flesh) but his divine nature, as perfect, did not

progress.130 The issue of Jesus development beyond Luke 2:52 is not much discussed.131 Origen

126
Some pagan critics of Christianity in fact looked for inconsistencies between Jesus
action and teaching. Theon, Progym. 3 instructed that readers identify inconsistencies in
narratives. Note for example the anonymous 3rd-century philosopher discussed by Cook,
Hellenistic Responses to the Gospels, 240-43.
127
For Julian and Porphyry, for example, contradiction evidenced not a change of mind
on Jesus part, but that he was a poor thinker or even deceitful. Porphyry at one point says
Christ contradicts himself and proves himself a liar when (two of his teachings conflict). See
Porphyrys Against the Christians: The Literary Remains (trans. and ed. R. Joseph Hoffmann;
Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1994), 31.
128
Luke 2:52: [ ]
.
129
See De Jesu puero 1.10 (SC 60:68 [my translation]).
130
E.g. Athanasius, C. Ar. 3.42-52; Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. Jo. 1.14; John of
Damascus, De fide 3.22; Thomas Aquinas, Summa 3a. 12.2 (reply); etc. Madigan, Passions of
Christ, 24: from the eighth century to the thirteenth, almost all Latin expositors denied that
Jesus truly so progressed.

60
seems to have thought on the basis of Luke 2:52 that Jesus developed until he reached full

maturity at age twelve (which Origen saw as a miracle itself).132 Perhaps others shared this

view.133 But when there is mention of Jesus further development it is occasional and abstract,

such as the ambiguous statement of Irenaeus that Jesus passed through every stage of life.134 A

few others: Athanasius implied that a progressive manifestation of the logos in Jesus throughout

his ministry explains why Peter confessed the Messiahship first and then others at a later

point;135 Theodore of Mopsuestia would claim that the assumed humanity must have freedom

and moral choice and thus really grow in knowledge;136 and Aponius would argue that Christs

131
Or the possibility is raised only to be rejected, as in Eusebius, Dem. ev. 4.11 in Proof
of the Gospel: Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea (ed. and trans. W. J.
Ferrar; 2 vols; London: New York: Macmillan, 1920), 1:185-86: He lived His whole life
through in the same manner, now revealing His nature as like our own, and now that of God the
Word, doing great works and miracles as God, and announcing beforehand predictions of the
future, and showing clearly by His deeds God the Word Who was not seen by the multitude, and
He made the end of His life, when He departed from men, in tune with and similar to its
beginning.
132
Origen, Hom. Luc. 19.1-3.
133
Diodore of Tarsus would argue that the divine nature shared its perfection with
Christs humanity in portions (particulatim). Cf. James M. Carmody and Thomas E. Clarke,
Word and Redeemer: Christology in the Fathers (Glenn Rock: Paulist Press, 1966), 83;
Grillmeier, Apostolic Age to Chalcedon, 356. Ambrose believed that Jesus really grew in wisdom
as a man, which means he had sense perception. See Myst. 7. Cf. Adams, What Sort of Human
Nature?, 20. See also Basil, Ep. 236.1-2. On the Antiochene school see Engelbert Gutwenger,
Bewusstsein und Wissen Christi: eine dogmatische Studie (Innsbruck: F. Rauch 1960), 100.
134
Irenaeus, Haer. 3.18.7.
135
Athanasius, C. Ar. 3.52.
136
Cf. R. A. Norris, Manhood and Christ: A Study in the Christology of Theodore of
Mopsuestia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 129-36; 223-28; Frederick G. McLeod, The
Christology in Theodore of Mopsuestias Commentary on the Gospel of John, TS 73 (2012):
115-38 at 129-31.

61
human soul became inseparably united to the logos only after the proving of his earthly life.137

With the exception of Athanasius, however (who parallels Origen, discussed below), such

perspectives are large-scale summaries of the ministry and do not concern particular scenes after

the baptism of John.

In any case, many of the same texts that later questers would use as evidence of change

from one period of the ministry to another were indeed recognized and interpreted in similar

ways. Origen and Chrysostom are two particular thinkers who do not assume that Jesus himself

developed or changed his perspective, but rather that over the course of the ministry the disciples

and/or his general audience became more able to receive the truth about Jesus. The Gospels thus

evidence not a change in Jesus message but rather an unfolding of it and a gradual deepening in

the theological understanding of his hearers.138

Origens opinion on this matter stems from his reading of Matthew in his Commentary.

As is Origens wont in his spiritual reading of the Bible in general, he typically clarifies a

passage in Matthew by looking at another. Thus, in inquiring about the way in which certain

parts of the Gospel relate to the whole, he concludes that the scene at Caesarea Philippi was a

notable advance in the disciples knowledge.139 In fact, Origen notes that Jesus had sent out his

137
Here see Grillmeier, Apostolic Age to Chalcedon, 385-88. Cf. Johannes Witte, Der
Kommentar des Aponius zum Hohenliede (Erlangen: Junge & Sohn, 1903), who summarizes at
51-52: Doch ist mit der Geburt aus der Jungfrau die Vereinigung der beiden Naturen noch nicht
abgeschlossen und vollendet. Der heilige Geist hat sich in der Taufe erst auf den assumptus
homo niedergelassen, nachdem er die sndlose Schnheit seines Leibes und die Hoheit seiner
Seele erkannt hatte. Durch dies Herabkommen des Geistes ist der Verbindung des Logos mit der
Seele eine unlsliche geworden.
138
Note Theodotuss view that Jesus taught his disciples, at first, typically and
mystically; later, parabolically and enigmatically; and thirdly, clearly and plainly, in private.
See Clement of Alexandria, Exc. 66. Cf. Grant, Earliest Lives, 13.
139
For discussion see Ferda, Seventy Faces of Peters Confession, 426-29.

62
disciples to proclaim the Gospel before Peter had confessed Jesus Messiahship, which must

mean that the disciples did not, at that time, proclaim him as such.140 The apostles had not yet

announced to their hearers that he was the Christ, Origen says, instead they earlier ()

proclaimed Jesus the doer of certain things ( ) and the teacher of certain things

().141 Origen also recognizes that only from the time of Caesarea Philippi on

does Jesus begin to talk about his violent end.142 On these bases, then, and in attempt to avoid

further narrative tensions, Origen claims to identify a development in the disciples knowledge of

Jesus.143 How else will one explain that Jesus suddenly praises Peter for a confession that was

common knowledge? Or that Jesus would at one time tell his disciples to travel and to proclaim

throughout Galilee, and at another to be quiet? There must be some change.

The significance of Origens reading of Matthew for the crisis theory concerns not just

method but content. The focus of the discussion in and around the sending of the twelve and

Peters confession parallel many 19th-century Lives of Jesus,144 which also identified these

scenes as turning points in the ministry and often closely related to a Galilean crisis and Jesus

change of mind. Some regarded a crisis in Galilee as the catalyst for Jesus to begin speaking of

himself as the Messiah and/or to anticipate his death, and Origen similarly positions these ideas

as novelties at this point in Matthews narrative. The main difference, of course, is the

140
Origen, Comm. Matt. 12.15.
141
Origen, Comm. Matt. 12.18 (PG 13:1024a [my translation]).
142
Origen, Comm. Matt. 12.17. See Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 35.3.
143
Origen claimed to find a similar development in Pauls thought between Gal, 1-2 Cor,
Phil, and Rom where nothing can separate him from the love of Christ. See the praef. of his
Comm. Rom. (PG 14:833-35). Note also his explanation of why Jesus taught in parables in Princ.
3.1.
144
See also the two part division of the Vita Christi by Ludolph as discussed above at
note 77.

63
protagonist of change. For Origen, Jesus is the constant. For later historians, Jesus himself is the

variable.

While Origens parallels to later history-writing center on a few episodes in the Gospels,

those in John Chrysostoms Homilies on Matthew are more extensive still. At some points

Chrysostom nearly reads Matthew as a biography of Jesus.145 He routinely attempts to explain

the unspoken connections between pericopae, to relate individual episodes to what came before

and what comes after, and to explain the motive of the itinerancy of Jesus. In this endeavor he

sometimes comes close to expressing the idea of a Galilean spring and a time of rejection, and

even the view that eschatological teaching was subsequent to the ethical.

Like Origen, Chrysostom does not think that Jesus changed his perspective during his

ministry. Chrysostoms Christology is similar to that of Athanasius in that, while Christ had a

human soul, it plays little role; the divine logos knows and wills and acts.146 But Chrysostom

believes that Jesus, in his perfect knowledge, did not always proclaim the same message. As

Chrysostom sees it, the ministry of Jesus is an education whereby hearers progress from milk to

solid food.147 So at the beginning of the ministry, Jesus goes easy. The hard stuff comes later.

Chrysostom elaborates on the earliest period after Johns arrest:

145
Similar claims have been made of the Diatessaron and Juvencus Evangeliorum libri
quattuor, but these do not compare.
146
Cf. Camillus Hay, St. John Chrysostom and the Integrity of the Human Nature of
Christ, FrancStud 19 (1959): 290-317 at 315; Melvin E. Lawrenz, III, The Christology of John
Chrysostom (Lewiston; Queenston; Lampeter: Mellon University Press, 1996), 73-87, 104.
147
For a similar motif in Chrysostoms use of John 4, what George L. Parsenios calls
pastoral adaptability, see The Jesus of History and Divine Adaptability in Saint John
Chrysostoms Interpretation of John 4, in Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions
(eds. James H. Charlesworth and Brian Rhea; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 863-73. The
notion of divine adaptability or condenscation is frequently found in Chrysostom, see David
Rylaarsdam, John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: the Coherence of His Theology and
Preaching (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

64
 (Jesus) also was teaching this same thing which that one (John) proclaimed; and he says
nothing yet concerning himself and the kerygma which he (John) proclaimed (
). Since for the time it was good
enough to be received, since not yet did they have the proper opinion about him.
Therefore when beginning he places before them nothing burdensome and offensive
( ) as John did, (such as) an axe and a tree being cut down,
a winnowing fork and threshing floor and unquenchable fire; but his inauguration is
pleasant ( ): he proclaims to his hearers there the good news about
the heavens and the kingdom (
).148

Jesus backs off the offensive eschatological predictions that characterized Johns preaching until

he could win an honest hearing from the Galileans. At the outset, then, his message is pleasant

and full of . Jesus does not talk about himself but the message centers on the

kingdom. The announcement of impending judgment, and Jesus own views about himself as the

Messiah and his passion, appear later in the ministry when the audience was in position to

understand and accept these things.149

In other homilies Chrysostom elaborates further on Jesus evolving pedagogy, sometimes

more explicitly on the relationship between what later critics will term the ethical and

eschatological strands of the tradition. On the saying about the disciples sitting on twelve

thrones, Chrysostom writes:

Now to the disciples he promised the things to come ( ), saying You will sit
on twelve thrones; for they were at a higher level than the rest, and they were seeking
none of the things of the present world....And to the disciples in the early stages (
), when they were in a more imperfect state, he reasoned from present things
( ). For when he drew them from the sea, and took them
from (their) livelihood, and command them to leave the boat, he did not recall the
heavens nor thrones but of present matters ( ), saying I

148
Hom. Matt. 14.1 (PG 57:218-19 [my translation])
149
This perspective appears elsewhere in his homilies. See e.g. Hom. Matt. 54.1.
Concerning John 19:30 (I have the power to lay down my lifesuch I have received from my
Father), Chrysostom denies that Christ waited to receive the command from God to die on the
cross at some point during his ministry; the point of the saying is to show that Christ is not at
variance with the Father. See Hom. Jo. 60.2-3.

65
 will make you fishers of men. But since he had led them to higher places, then after that
he reasons from that perspective.150

Jesus does not begin his ministry with talk about the future but reasoned from the things

present. Eschatology comes later when the disciples had been adequately equipped.

For Chrysostom the changes in the content of Jesus teaching find parallel in changes of

tone. Later in the ministry, he notes, Jesus begins to demand faith before healing people, when

he did not do so at the beginning.151 Jesus also rebukes and says things like you of little faith

after he had given his hearers enough knowledge to be responsible for their reactions.152

Concerning Jesus prediction of judgment for the sons of the kingdom who are thrown out

when many gather from the East and West, Chrysostom explains that Jesus here speaks with

more boldness ( ) than earlier in his ministry.153 And regarding the

triumphal entry Chrysostom writes: since now he gave (them) sufficient experience of his

power, and the cross was at the doors, he thereafter puts himself forward in a greater way

( )For indeed it was possible for him to act this way at the

beginning, but neither profitable nor advantageous to do so.154

In all these examples, what Chrysostom calls accommodation or adaptability

()155 later historians will call change of mind. There is a real difference here. But

150
Hom. Matt. 64.1 (PG 58:610 [my translation]).
151
Hom. Matt. 14.4.
152
Hom. Matt. 22.1.
153
Hom. Matt. 26.2 (PG 57:335). Such statements are everywhere in Chrysostom. Cf.
Hom. Matt. 55.2, where he says that Jesus gradually introduced greater commandments so that
his hearers would not think it strange.
154
Hom. Matt. 66.1 (PG 58:627 [my translation]).
155
And here Chrysostom is part of a much wider conversation, see e.g. Margaret M.
Mitchell, Pauline Accomodation and Condescension (): 1 Cor 9:19-23 and the
66
the fact is that Chrysostoms comments about the progression of Jesus teaching mark the same

textual material that later critics will use to construct the theory of a Galilean crisis. Chrysostom

not only observes something of what others will call the honeymoon period, he identifies

seeming differences in tone, emphasis, and content. He contrasts teachings about the present and

predictions about the future. He treats Matthew as a rather straightforward presentation of the

ministry which, even if episodic, requires that the reader explain and resolve tensions in the

layout of events. Chrysostom even resembles later critics in the degree to which he gets caught

up in his own motif of progression so as to find it everywhere, as when he oddly claims that the

second cleansing of the temple (the Synoptic) is more severe than the first (Johns).156

2.5. CONCLUSION

The purpose of this chapter has been to show that, to a greater degree than previously realized,

readers of the Gospels before modern critical scholarship used similar strategies of interpretation

as the proponents of a Galilean crisis, and even achieved some similar results. Significant points

include:

(i) noting the episodic nature of the Gospels and providing an overarching logic to them;

(ii) moving Gospel episodes around so as to be more commonsensical;

(iii) assuming a particular position of a pericope (or backstory) in the larger

chronology based on its content;

(iv) grouping Jesus teaching and deeds together according to a common motif;

History of Influence, in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (ed. Troels Engberg-
Petersen; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 197-214.
156
From Hom. Jo. 23.2. See also Ludolph of Saxony, Vita Christi, 2.29. If anything it
seems the opposite is the case, as Jesus has a whip in John.

67
 (v) assuming Jesus was indeed rejected by his contemporaries and disappointed by the
fact;

(vi) claiming Jesus teaching changed over the course of his ministry.

Nowhere, of course, do we find the crisis theory itself. Hermeneutical structures indeed change

and interpretations with them. But the conclusions of this chapter are important because they

discourage the assumption that the logic of a Galilean crisis came solely from new hermeneutical

and philosophical underpinnings, or merely from a new predilection to psychologize Jesus.

The modern Quest, despite its attempt to free itself from the shackles of dogma and the

theological reading of Scripture in earlier generations, did not advance radically new

interpretations of particular texts and themes in the tradition when it came to a Galilean crisis.

They rather situated rather old interpretations into new historical frameworks and methods, and

therein found updated answers to rather old interpretive questions. It is especially noteworthy in

this regard that, when certain texts have been considered on their own terms and apart from their

original narrative contexts, such as the Galilean woes (Q 10:13-16), they have been thought to

imply a similar backstory. The disagreement between the questers and earlier readers of the

Gospels is not so much over the interpretation of this pericope, but rather the inferred past that

that interpretation is thought to require (and the same could be said of the treatment of the

parables and other passages).157 Some earlier readers thought that Jesus really experienced

rejection and was disappointed and afraid, but they did not make those particular experiences a

historical crisis as it pertains to the ministry as a whole.

It should also be noted that many of these selections above are relevant to the issue of the

crisis because they are about a similar task: to make sense of the ministry of Jesus as an inner-

connected whole. The perspective that Jesus or his disciples changed, for example, results from

157
For this language, see the Introduction, pp. 9-13.

68
an attempt to compare and contrast Jesus material, to note and resolve narrative tensions. It is a

macro-level solution. That is why we find generalizations about Jesus having initial success and

later rejection, or first talking about things present and only later about things to come. The

attempt is to speak of the whole ministry of Jesus. The modern Quest would want to do the same,

although for different reasons.

But we are not yet prepared to enter the 19th-century. Many years still lie between our

research in this Chapter and the 19th-century Quest, and much of it is ignored by modern

histories of Jesus scholarship.

69
 CHAPTER 3.0

BEFORE REIMARUS: REFORMATION AND ENLIGHTENMENT

The division between Chapters 2 and 3 around the 15th and 16th centuries is not arbitrary. For

despite much continuity with what came before, we find around the time of the Reformation in

Europe developments of major consequence for the theory of a Galilean crisis. Our investigation

here is also significant for the background of the modern Quest of the historical Jesus in general,

since it is becoming increasingly recognized that Albert Schweitzers monumental survey of

Jesus literature left out much, and most New Testament scholars ever since have been content to

ignore the three centuries before Reimarus Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Junger (1778).158

This chapter, then, like the last, provides better understanding of an under-investigated area, as

many of the observations below have not been made in prior histories of Jesus research.

The goal is to show that both the modern Quest and the crisis theory begin to take shape

in the methodological assumptions, historical questions, and theological tensions that

158
See e.g. August C. Lundsteen, Hermann Samuel Reimarus und die Anfnge der
Leben-Jesu Forschung (Copenhagen: A. C. Olsen, 1939), 108-33; Henning Graf Reventlow,
Das Arsenal der Bibelkritik des Reimarus: Die Auslegung der Bibel, insbesondere des Alten
Testaments, bei den englischen Deisten, in Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768): ein
bekannter Unbekannter der Aufklrung in Hamburg (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
1973), 44-65 at 45 (the work of Reimarus cannot be evaluated if one does not know his
presuppositions in the biblical criticism of the English Deists); Colin Brown, Jesus in European
Protestant Thought, 1778-1860 (SHT 1; Durham: Labyrinth, 1985), 29-55; Dale C. Allison Jr.,
Apocalyptic, Polemic, Apologetics, in Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliiest Christian Tradition
and Its Interpreters (London; New York: 2005), 111-48 at 115-18.

70
characterize writing about Jesus and the Gospels from the Reformation (approximately) to

Reimarus. As such, the approach continues the inquiry of the last chapter. Our interest again

concerns interpretive parallels between this pre-Quest period and later Jesus study, as well as the

further development of certain habits of reading that will influence subsequent research.

Reimarus and the 19th-century Quest will build on the patterns of interpretation and

harmonization that scholars from this period propagated.

Four topics will occupy our attention. The first takes up theological developments that

made possible the kind of reflection on Jesus mental state that we find in the crisis theory. The

second investigates the boom of Gospel harmonies in the 16th century and beyond, particularly

their underlying assumptions, aims, and key results. The third focuses on the contributions of

Enlightenment rationalists, free-thinkers, and Deists on the issues of Jesus aims and his

approach to ministry. And the fourth probes an increase in the tendency to divide the ministry of

Jesus into distinct periods or sections and some probable influences on that practice.

3.1. THE HUMANITY OF JESUS

The Reformers made some radical breaks from prior tradition. In general, however, Christology

was spared. Luther, Calvin, and many others affirmed the classic creedal positions,159 even

though they may have disliked particular aspects of earlier discussions.160 It is no surprise, then,

that many assumd the theological views discussed in Chapter 2.1 that excluded the possibility of

159
Cf. Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (vol. 4 of The
Christian Tradition; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 158; Moloney, Knowledge of
Christ, 69; Gerald OCollins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus
(2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 213.
160
Luther, for instance, disliked the term homoousios. Cf. Christa Tecklenburg Johns,
Luthers Konzilsidee in ihrer historischen Bedingtheit und ihrem reformatorischen Neuansatz
(Berlin: Tpelmann, 1966), 43. Calvin was unsure about Theotokos.

71
a Galilean crisis at the outset. For instance, few Christian thinkers retreated from the view that

Jesus death was essential to his mission; that Jesus was omniscient and foreknew all who would

reject him; that the Jews and others who opposed Jesus were blind and ignorant for doing so; that

Jesus message, timeless divine truth, did not change and develop throughout his earthly

ministry.

Despite such continuity, however, there were deeper christological shifts underway that

contributed to the construction of the very human Jesus of the later Quest. These changes

manifested in the treatment of Gospel texts that had been notoriously problematic for orthodox

Christology. Here many Christian readers affirmed, with little drama, conclusions that earlier

thinkers took great lengths to avoid. It seems that one could affirm the christological traditions of

the church, yet not affirm the same reading of the Gospels that these traditions often inspired.

Luther himself provides a good example of this trend in a sermon on John 6, a text which

will also feature prominently in many reconstructions of a Galilean crisis. Concerning the report

that many deserted Jesus and no longer followed him (John 6:66-67), Luther explains that

Jesus had hoped for a different outcome:

(Jesus) would have been glad to convert them and to remove the offense from their
hearts. But it was all in vain. They could not be persuaded, even though He told them
that this was a matter of the spiritOne can well imagine how grieved the Lord must
have been to see His own disciples, His daily companions, desert him. Very likely they
took a large number of people with them.161

When Jesus turns to ask his disciples if they too would go away, Luther continues to explain that

Jesus very likelyuttered these words with a saddened heart.162 Luther also claims that Jesus

161
Martin Luther, Twenty-first Sermon (on John 6), in Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,
Chapters 6-8 (vol. 23 of Luthers Works; ed. Jaroslav Pelikan; trans. n.m.; St. Louis: Concordia,
1959), 185-97 at 186.
162
Luther, Twenty-first Sermon, 189.

72
found the defection an ill omen and a bad sign. If the pillars and the foundation will not stand,

what will become of the superstructure and the rafters?163

Of course Luther has not succumbed to Arianism or some other christological heresy that

slights or denies the divinity of Jesus. Luther affirmed Nicea and Chalcedon, and he enjoyed

calling Zwingli Nestorius redivivus.164 But there is an ease with which Luther makes these

remarks that are unimaginable in a medieval treatise on Christology or an attack of Arianism by

one of the church fathers.165 Indeed, one could see Arius applauding Luthers remarks as

evidence of creaturely limitation in Jesus. Yet Luther neither intends nor expects any

controversy here.

The key point is this: despite Luthers professed allegiance to christological tradition, his

reading of John 6 presents a striking psychological evaluation of Jesus. Luther here traces a

straight line from the words of Jesus to his emotions and mental state. The Reformer does not

intimate that, because Jesus is the Son of God, his reaction to mass defection would be different

than that of a normal person.166 In fact, the reading assumes the contrary: the experience of Jesus,

163
Luther identifies among those who deserted the 72 disciples that Jesus had earlier sent
to preach the Gospel. See Twenty-first Sermon, 185, 190.
See Luthers remarks in The Theology of Christ: Sources (ed. Vincent Zamoyta;
164

Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1967), 128-29.

165
The irony here is that, in terms of Luthers more dogmatic discussions of Christology,
the Reformer is closer to Monophysitism than any Christology that denies the divinity of Jesus.
See Sydney Cave, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (New York; Charles Scribners
Sons, 1925), 151-52.
166
Luther departed from earlier christological thought when he said that Christ
experienced the psychological torment of being abandoned by God on the cross. Cf. Adams,
What Sort of Human Nature?, 93-94 (Luther here reject[s] patristic exegesis).

73
in this case, comports with human experience generally.167 One can approximate the experience

of Jesus by drawing an analogy to normal human life.

Similar depictions can be found in the writings of many others. Calvin affirmed that

Jesus, in his humanity, confided in God (Heb 2:13),168 truly progressed in wisdom (Luke

2:52),169 and was ignorant of the last day (Mark 13:32).170 One historian believes that Jerome

Zanchius (1516-1590) sowed the seeds of kenotic Christology already in the 16th century, as he

argued that Christ gave up the glory, power, and knowledge of the deity.171 In subsequent

generations, the pietistic stress on subjective human experience led to an emphasis of the same in

Jesus. Pelikan summarizes: if the subjective experience of divine grace for which Spener and

167
Cf. Case, Jesus through the Centuries, 281.
168
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (trans.
John Owen; Calvins Commentaries 22; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 68: he would have
no need of such trust, had he not been a man exposed to human necessities and wants. As then he
depended on Gods aid, his lot is the same with ours.
169
John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (trans. William Pringle; 3
vols.; Calvins Commentaries 16, 17; repr., Grand Rapids; Baker, 2009), 1:166-67: Some
excessively timid persons restrict what is here said to outward appearance, and make the
meaning to be, that Christ appeared to make progress, though, in point of fact, no addition was
made to his knowledge. But the words have a quite different meaning, and this mistaken opinion
is still more fully refuted by what Luke shortly afterwards adds, that he grew in age and wisdom
with God and man (ver. 52). We are not at liberty to suppose, that knowledge lay concealed in
Christ, and made its appearance in him in progress of time. There is no doubt whatever, that it
was the design of God to express in plain terms, how truly and completely Christ, in taking upon
him our flesh, did all that was necessary to effect his brotherly union with men (italics orig.).
170
Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists, 3:153-54: many persons, thinking that this was
unworthy of Christ, have endeavoured to mitigate the harshness of this opinion by a contrivance
of their own(but) There would be no improprietyin saying that Christ, who knew all things,
(John xxi.17), was ignorant of something in respect of his perception as a man. Cf. Institutes of
the Christian Religion 2.14.2 (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Fort Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; LCC 20,
21; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 1:483-84.
171
Cf. Donald G. Dawe, The Form of a Servant: A Historical Analysis of the Kenotic
Motif (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), 9.

74
Pietism called was no less to find its ground in the human life of Jesus Christ, there had to be,

within his own humanity, some way of exhibiting it.172

One noteworthy case-study of this christological tendency is the work of the Puritan John

Owen (1616-1683). Owen advanced a Spirit Christology that claimed to be orthodox in all

matters but went beyond the contributions of his forbearers. He argued that Christs rational

soulnot his divine naturewas the animating principle of all his actions.173 Thus Owen could

affirm that Jesus wisdom and knowledge, by the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, was

objectively increased, and in new trials and temptations he experimentally learned the new

exercise of grace.174 Owen does not conclude on this basis that Jesus gradually discovered the

purpose of his ministry.175 But his focus theologically justified the humanization of Jesus

experience of the world and opened a door for further investigation of his self-consciousness.176

172
Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma, 361. Many early Protestant hymns,
especially those by Johann Arndt and Johann Gerhard, also map the experience of the believer
onto the experience of Jesus. E.g. Arndts Jesu, allerliebster Bruder in Seventeenth-Century
Lutheran Meditations and Hymns (ed. Eric Lund; New York; Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2011),
326-29. Cf. Dieter Georgi, The Interest in Life of Jesus Theology as a Paradigm for the Social
History of Biblical Criticism, HTR 85 (1992): 51-83 at 70.
173
So Owen: Being a perfect man, his rational soul was in him the immediate principle
of all his moral operations even as ours are in us. Cited in Richard W. Daniels, The Christology
of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 295.
174
John Owen, On the Holy Spirit (vol. 3 of The Works of John Owen; ed. William H.
Goold; repr., Philadelphia: Leighton Publications, 1862), 170 (italics orig.).
175
In his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (vol. 21 of The Works of John Owen;
ed. William H. Goold; London; repr., Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1854), 524, Owen
states: Being always full of grace, truth, and wisdom, he was never at a loss for what he had to
do, nor wanted anything of a perfect readiness of mind for its performance.
176
Cf. Alan Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration: John Owen and the Coherence of
Christology (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 118 (there were no aspects of his activity
where God, or the divine nature, replaced the normal operation of his humanity). See also
Oliver D. Crisp, Revisioning Christology: Theology in the Reformed Tradition (Farnham;
Burlington: Ashgate, 2011), 91-110.

75
 One could give many more examples, but the point for our purposes is clear: the 15th and

16th centuries witness a heightened interest in the thought process of Jesus and the way in which

he experienced his surroundings.177 For some, there was an increase in comfortability with the

notion that Jesus was honestly disappointed by rejection, taken back by defection, and wished

things that did not come to pass.178 Such features of the Gospel tradition were not necessarily

troublesome for Christian thinkers, but were rather points of contact between the life of Jesus and

the life of the everyday believer. They evidenced the humbling extent of the incarnation.179 As

will be discussed more below, this period also produced thinkers not bound by christological

tradition who came to their own radical conclusions about the humanity of Jesus. But the focus

here concerns the interesting phenomenon of Christian readers who assumed and/or defended the

classic christological creeds in word, yet did not take the creedal framework to demand the same

readings of the Gospels as in earlier times. To be sure, we find no details about the nature of

Jesus intellectual development, far less any suggestion that some crisis induced a change of

mind on his part. As in the last chapter, discussions typically relate either to Jesus ministry

considered as a unified whole or they cluster around select passages in the Gospels. But we do

find something important that squares with a budding humanistic Zeitgeist: an anthropological

turn in Christology wherein the consciousness of individual subjects and their experience of

177
See, however, the important contributions of Scotus and Occam, discussed in Georgi,
Paradigm for the Social History of Biblical Criticism, 62.
178
See e.g. Lapide, The Great Commentary (trans. Thomas W. Mossman, assisted by
various scholars; 6 vols.; 2nd ed.; London: John Hodges, 1887 [orig. 1681]), 4:463, on Christ
weeping over Jerusalem: He wept as well over the blindness, obduracy, and ingratitude of the
people of Jerusalemand because He saw His own labours and sufferings for them frustrated
and rendered of no effect. Hereafter I will provide original publication dates for citations below
when such information is significant and not mentioned in the body of the argument.
179
Cf. Martin Bucer, De Regno Christi (trans. Wilhelm Pauck with Paul Larkin; LCC 19;
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964 [orig. 1551]), 177. I will provide

76
themselves and the world takes on new significance and will become, for some, the major and

even exclusive criterion for christological argument.180 The theory of a Galilean crisis cannot be

understood apart from this.

3.2. GOSPEL HARMONIES AND PARAPHRASES

We also find in the 16th century an incredible boom in the production of harmonies of the

Gospels. While it is difficult to determine a precise number, it can easily be said that more

harmonies appeared in the 1500s than in all of the previous thirteen centuries combined.181

Contributing factors to this trend include the heightened emphasis on the humanity of Jesus as

discussed above, as well as a growing interest in Jesus life for devotional imitation.182 The

Renaissance interest in language, original sources, and history was also influential.183 These

harmonies are significant because, it will be argued, the later Quest for the historical Jesus, and

the theory of a Galilean crisis in particular, will sprout and grow in the soil provided by them.

180
OCollins, Christology, 217. Cf. John Macquarrie, Rationalist Christology, in Jesus
Christ in Modern Thought (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990),
175-91.
181
Cf. McArthur, Quest through the Centuries, 86; Kissinger, Lives of Jesus, 12.
182
This devotional motive is also behind the production of Ludolphs Vita (1350),
discussed in the last chapter. Cf. Conway, Vita Christi of Ludolph of Saxony, 122; Anthony J.
Godzieba, From Vita Christi to Marginal Jew: The Life of Jesus as Criterion of Reform in
Pre-critical and Post-critical Quests, LS 32 (2007): 111-133 at 118.
183
Cf. Gerhard Muller, Osianders Evangelienharmonie, in Histoire de l'exgese au
XVIe siecle: textes du colloque international tenu a Geneve en 1976 (eds. Olivier Fatio and
Pierre Fraenkel; Geneva: Droz, 1978), 256-64 at 257; Peter Burke, The Renaissance Sense of the
Past (London: Edward Arnold, 1969), 40-41; Jerry H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New
Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 7-20;
Peter Harrison, Fixing the Meaning of Scripture: The Renaissance Bible and the Origins of
Modernity, Concilium 1 (2002): 102-10.

77
 It may seem initially unlikely to relate Gospel harmonies and later work on Jesus in this

manner, given the traditional understanding of the harmony as an outdated, apologetical, and

hardly critical genre. It is often said that the modern Quest for Jesus in the late 18th century was

the first to deal with historical issues behind the Gospel narratives, while harmonies did not share

this historical interest and have little value beyond the theological assumptions that produced

them. To be sure, according to common periodizations, the Quest is thought to begin with the

conclusion of mass harmony production in the mid- to late 18th century.184

Some of this critique is fair. It should go without saying that harmonies are worthless

guides to the historical Jesus.185 But it is also true that many who disparaged the harmonies

benefited greatly from doing so, as it made their own work appear original and more critical.186

Of course there is no denying that later research was original and more critical on many issues.

The point, instead, is that the severing of the harmony tradition from the Quest has clouded from

view the significance of the aims, assumptions, and even results of Gospel harmonies for later

Jesus research and especially for the crisis theory. Four considerations demonstrate this.

(i) Biographical interest. First, when 19th-century historians started titling their works A

Life of Jesus or A History of Jesus, they were not doing something new:

Erasmus Alber, Historia de Christo Jesu (1532)

Wilhelm van Branteghem, Iesu Christi vita (1537)

184
Cf. e.g. Charles C. Anderson, Critical Quests of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1969), 9; Daniel L. Pals, The Victorian Lives of Jesus (San Antonio: Trinity University Press,
1982), 9.
185
Here already Johann J. Griesbach, Synopsis evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae
nd
(2 ed.; Halle: J. J. Curtius, 1797 [orig. 1774]), v-vi. Cf. Kmmel, Introduction to the New
Testament, 85.
186
See e.g. William Gilpin, An Exposition of the New Testament (2 vols.; 4th ed.; London:
Cadel and Davies, 1811 [orig. 1790]), 1:xxxvii-iii.

78
 Joachim Perion, De vita resbusque gestis Iesu Christi (1553)

Alanus Copus, Syntaxis historiae evangelicae (1572)

Georg Wirth, Vita vel evangelium Iesu Christi (1594)

Many works in the 16th century and later regarded themselves as Vitae or Historiae.187 Even the

much reviled Andreas Osiander said that the purpose of his work was to present totam domini

nostri IESV CHRISTI uitam.188

The titles are important because they betray the intention of the harmonist to present for

the reader something of a biography of Jesus. The biographical interest becomes more and more

evident in 17th and 18th-century harmonies.189 This fact is oddly absent from histories of the

Quest and even studies of the genre of the Gospels.190

Moreover, to produce a biographical portrait of Jesus means that the harmonists treated

the Gospels as sources for this portrait. In this sense, the writing of harmonies was not a purely

literary exercise.191 Many believed their work provided the events of Jesus life as those events

187
And of course there was even earlier precedent in the likes of Ludolph of Saxony. Cf.
McArthur, Quest through the Centuries, 57-58, 78-84.
188
Andreas Osiander, Harmoniae evangelicae libri IIII Graece et Latine (Basil: s.n.,
1537), praef. to Elenchus, A 1. Catholic harmonist Cornelius Jansen had similar aims; see Wim
Franois, Augustine and the Golden Age of Biblical Scholarship in Louvain (1550-1650), in
Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Their Readers in the Sixteenth
Century (eds. Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), 235-90 at 252.
189
Note William Whiston, A Short View of the Chronology of the Old Testament, and of
the Harmony of the Four Evangelists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1702), 97: The
four Gospels are not Occaional Memoirs, but Methodical Annals of the Acts of Chrit (italics
orig.).
190
Richard A. Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman
Biography (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004) begins his survey of the
Gospels as biographies with the 19th-century Lives.
191
Here Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View
the Man from Galilee (2nd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013), 12 is on target:
79
actually happened historically. The perspective is significant for our purposes and rests upon a

number of key assumptions. One the previous chapter also explored: the Gospels, many

harmonists thought, each contribute one portion to a fuller narrative about Jesus. Some even

concluded that the Gospels were intentionally written to facilitate such harmonization.192 But

another is more historical in orientation and has less in common with prior work. It is this: in the

treatment of the Gospels as sources we find a small distinction between the Jesus of each Gospel

and the Jesus of the harmonist, with the latter more approximating historical reality.193 It is true

that the Christian harmonist would deny that the biblical Jesus of each Gospel distorted history

or misrepresented it in any important way.194 But, as we will see in more detail below, many

would grant that Jesus did not, in fact, say and do things in the order and manner in which he is

said to say and do them in each Gospel.195 Augustine had partly paved the way for this view

In producing Gospel harmonies, scholars were already asking historical questions about Jesus,
but they did so within a context of faith, not skepticism.
192
Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists, 1:xxxix, thought the compilation of a harmony
demonstrated the working of the Holy Spirit in the Evangelists: under this diversity in the
manner of writing(one sees) an astonishing harmony.
193
Hence already the much discussed distinction between the narratives of the Gospels
and the historical world behind them, a distinction that will soon dominate discussions of the
inspiration of New Testament books. See Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study
in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven; London: Yale University
Press, 1974), 1-16; Gregory Dawes, The Historical Jesus Question: The Challenge of History to
Religious Authority (Louisville et al.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 2-4; Michael C.
Legaspi, From Scripture to Text, in The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 3-26.
194
As David Steinmetz has generalized, there was no slippage here. See The Eucharist
and the Identity of Jesus in the Early Reformation, in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A
Pilgrimage (eds. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008), 270-84 at 270.
195
Grotius is significant here. The primary significance of the Gospels in his view is their
attempt (he does not think they are inerrant) to point the reader to the teaching of Jesus and to
guarantee Jesus authority via stories about his miracles and the resurrection. Cf. Henk Jan de
Jonge, Grotius View of the Gospels and the Evangelists, in Hugo Grotius, Theologian: Essays
80
conceptually, as discussed in the prior chapter. But 16th-century harmonies also built on the

prioritization of the historical or literal sense of Scripture stressed by the Reformers and

others,196 as well as an increasingly popular view that the Gospels resemble ancient works of

history.197 Thus, harmonists engaged these inspired documents with interests and methods shared

by humanist intellectuals in other disciplines: namely, knowledge of a historical figure based on

careful reading of the sources.

(ii) Order of events. A second and related point on the significance of these harmonies is

that their authors, just like many 19th-century questers and proponents of the crisis, have a

fundamental interest in the order of events in the ministry. That is, their concern is not just to

produce an atomized synthesis of individual pericopae; they want to know the course of their

Saviors life. Of course the harmonies differ greatly in design, degree of detail, and results in this

regard. But the interest and aim is there. Already in Gersons Monotessaron (1420), which for

many in the 16th century and beyond was an exemplary harmony, one main concern is to identify

in Honour of G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes (eds. Henk J. M. Nellen and Edwin Rabbie; Leiden,
New York; Kln: Brill, 1994), 65-76.
196
This is not to ignore the fact that, in practice, many of the Reformers were quite
imaginative readers and in many ways closer to medieval exegesis than that of the 19th or 20th
centuries. See Richard A. Muller, Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The
View from the Middle Ages, in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays
Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday (eds. Richard A. Muller and
John L. Thompson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 3-22. For more on the literal sense see J. H.
Bentley, Humanist and Holy Writ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 115-26.
197
Note Luther in A Brief Introduction on What to Look for and Expect in the Gospels
(1521): (the gospel) is and should be nothing else than a discourse or a story about Christ, just
as it happens among men when one writes a book about a king or a princeThus the gospel is
and should be nothing else than a chronicle, a story, a narrative about Christ, telling who he is,
what he did, said, and suffered. See Word and Sacrament I (vol. 35 of Luthers Works; ed. and
trans. E. Theodore Bachmann; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 117-18.

81
the ordo rerum gestarum.198 So too, Luscinius Evangelicae historiae narratio (1523) claims to

offer a simplex una atque ea perpetua narratio.199 One finds the same in 16th-century notables

Jansen,200 Calvin,201 Chemnitz,202 and in many others. The focus persists throughout 17th and

18th-century harmonies to such a degree that it is impossible to study fully here.203 The

significance for the crisis theory is self-evident, as the identification of a crisis requires one to

know which events happened when. Stated better: the crisis theory is, in many ways, a sustained

effort to order the ministry.

In addition, for some harmonists the effort to fit the Gospel stories together in a rational

way helped identify a plot to the ministry and thus aid interpretation of the Gospels. Not all

harmonists had this aim, to be sure, and many limited their reflections to commentarial

198
Johannes Gerson, Monotessaron (vol. 4 of Ioannis Gersonii opera omnia; ed. Ellies
du Pin; Antwerp: s.n., 1706), cols. 82-202 at 89.
199
Cited in Dietrich Wnsch, Evangelienharmonien im Reformationszeitalter: Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Darstellungen (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1983), 41.
200
Cornelius Jansen, Commentarii in suam Concordiam, ac totam Historiam
evangelicam (Lugduni: Peter Landry, 1589 [orig. 1549]), praef. (to the reader) 4; also 1A (on the
proomium of Luke).
Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists, 1:xl states his goal to arrange the three histories
201

in one unbroken chain so a reader can see at a glance the similarities and differences.
Cf. Henk Jan de Jonge, Sixteenth-century Gospel Harmonies: Chemnitz and
202

Mercator, in Thorie et pratique de lexgese: Actes (Geneva: Droz, 1990), 155-166 at 156
(Chemnitz sought a natural order).
203
Cf. e.g. Bernard Lamy, Commentarius in concordiam Evangelicam et Apparatus
chronologicus et geographicus (2 vols.; Paris: Johannes Anisson, 1699), praef. i: because the
individual stories the Gospels have been spread out (para) and disconnected (divula), one
must inquire into the true series of the acts and words of the Lord (inquirere in veram eriem
actuum & ermonum Domini). See also John Lightfoot, The Harmony, Chronicle and Order of
the New Testament (vol. 3 of The Whole Works of Rev. John Lightfoot; ed. John Rogers Pitman;
London: J. F. Dove, 1822 [orig. 1654]), vi (the exegete may profit by reducing them [events]
to their proper time and order); Matthew Pilkington, The Evangelical History and Harmony
(London: W. Bowyer, 1747), ix (I attempted to reduce the Hitory to a proper Series).

82
discussion on the individual pericope at hand. But we do find some broader reflection. For

example, Martin Chemnitz wanted his reader to understand by what plan many were converted;

by what things very many were offended; under what circumstances many fell from faith; how

He sought fruit among His hearers; how long He waited for such fruit; how He finally announced

the wrath of God upon them.204 In other words, Chemnitz sought to communicate an

overarching plot of the ministryincluding its aims (e.g. by what plan), progression (e.g.

finally announced the wrath), and circumstances of action (e.g. how). Such plot

construction became increasingly common in later harmonies which were more paraphrastic and

robustly biographical in nature.205 Thus, the aim of later Jesus research to chart larger patterns in

the chronology of Jesus ministry and rationalize the sequence of events was not a new concern,

but rather stood in continuity with this prior work and developed it toward different ends.

(iii) Principles of arrangement. The third and closely related consideration is that, given

the aim to arrange the events properly, harmonists engage in a kind of reconstructive work. In so

doing there is an implicit criticism of the Gospels that resembles later Jesus study and the

interpretive moves behind the theory of the crisis. From such criticism we can exclude at the

outset Osiander and his school of thought, since he figured that each Gospel maintained an

204
Martin Chemnitz, Polycarp Leyser, and John Gerhard, The Harmony of the Four
Evangelists, Volume One, Book One (trans. Richard J. Dinda; Malone: Center for the Study of
Lutheran Orthodoxy, 2009 [orig. 1586), 3. This massive work occupied the attention of all three
of these scholars: Chemnitz started the project, after his death [in 1586] Leyser continued it, and
Gerhard finished it [in 1652] after Leysers death.
205
Cf. e.g. Thomas Ellwood, Sacred History: or, The Historical Part of the Holy
Scriptures of the New Testament; Gathered Out from the Other Parts Thereof, and Digested (as
Near as Well Could Be) into Due Method, with Respect to the Order of Time and Place (2nd ed;
London: J. Sowle, 1719 [orig. 1705]). Elwood provides connections absent from the text,
explains unclear points, and often paraphrases.

83
accurate chronology at all times.206 Here the harmonist would re-narrate the same event (e.g.

healing of Peters mother in law) multiple times if that event appeared in different Gospels in

different contexts.207 As influential as this approach was,208 in my estimation it does not

anticipate later Jesus research in any notable way.209 But another school of thought,

represented by Calvin and Chemnitz, followed Augustine and Ludolph in supposing that the

Evangelists had displaced certain events, and thus one should not assume that each preserved the

correct chronological order.210 In this case, the criticism took the form of (either explicitly or

206
Osiander omitted nothing, conflated nothing, but sought to interleave the events in a
way that made sense; so William L. Petersen, From Justin to Pepys: The History of the
Harmonized Gospel Tradition, in Patristic and Text-Critical Studies, 272-300 at 299. Cf.
Muller, Osianders Evangelienharmonie, 261.
207
The method achieved some humorous absurdities: Jesus cleansed the temple three
times; he cured four blind men around Jericho; he cured three centurions sons in Capernaum;
and he was anointed three times. See discussion in John Barton, Biblical Criticism and the
Harmonization of Texts, PSB 26 (2005): 144-56 at 149.
208
Cf. Laurent Codmann, Harmonia Evangelistarum (1563); Carolus Molinaeus,
Evangeliorum Unio (1565); Georg Wirth, Vita vel evangelium Iesu Christi (1594); Caspar H.
Sandhagen, Eine kurtze Einleitung, die Geschichte unsers Herrn Jesu Christi (1684); Johann
Reinhard, Harmonia Evangelistarum (1727-30); E. D. Hauber, Harmony of the Evangelists
(1737); etc.
209
The underappreciated study by Dietrich Wnsch, Evangelienharmonien im
Reformationszeitalter (1983) is on target in the suggestion that the harmony tradition prepares
for later Jesus research. However, his main thesis that Osianders type of harmony was the most
significant here is not compelling. The harmonists who followed Augustine would, by necessity,
develop the kinds of principles for reorganization that would later become standard practice.
Thus Merkel, Widersprche, 261, is right in saying that Osianders harmony is einen
Ruckschritt.
210
See de Jonge, Sixteenth-century Gospel Harmonies, 157. So Calvin, Harmony of the
Evangelists, 2:105: The Evangelists, as we have remarked on former occasions, were not very
exact in arranging Christs discourses, but frequently throw together a variety of sayings uttered
by him. Cf. idem, 1:xxxix; 1:258 (on the Sermon on the Mount: Those who think that Christs
sermon, which is here related, is different from the sermon contained in the sixth chapter of
Lukes Gospel, rest their argument on a very light and frivolous argument); 1:449 (on the
sending of the twelve: Perhaps, too, Matthew may have collected into one passage discourses
which were delivered at different times). Chemnitz, Harmony of the Four Evangelists, Volume
One, Book One, 2 remarks that the Gospels have their own rationale, and that in the context and
84
implicitly) identifying which Gospel preserved the accurate placement of a particular event, and

which one(s) did not.211 According to this view particular sayings and deeds in the tradition are

not rejected in toto as unhistorical, and there is no admitting of irresolvable contradictions

between the Gospelstwo moves that later questers will make.212 But it is an important and

overlooked step in that direction, and readers will recall that it goes beyond Augustine who had

less interestor less confidence of success, perhaps213in such an endeavor.214

For those who decide that rearrangement is necessary, then, the question of how to do it

quickly becomes pertinent. And in fact the Chemnitz-Calvin style of criticism led to important

debates about method, since harmonists were well aware of the potentially arbitrary nature of

rearranging the Gospels. Thus, what frequently reappears in the harmony tradition is discussion

about the logic, or ratio, of arrangement. Concerning Gersons influential Monotessaron, for

example, Chemnitz remarked that some things did not hold together by reason of their

sequence of their accounts, each follows his own order and unique plan which does not agree in
every respect with the rest
211
The influential Grotius would hold that the Gospels were not always in historical
order. Cf. Annotationes in libros evangeliorum (Amsterdam: s.n., 1641), 437 (on Matt 26:6):
Nothing is more certain than in the writings of the Evangelists many things are not related in
temporal order but as matters led to it (Nihil et certius quam criptoribus Euangeliorum multa
referri non temporis ordine, ed ex rerum ductu). See also his comments on Luke 9:51 (706).
212
Here Barton, Biblical Criticism, 151, is right to draw this distinction between
harmony writing and later historical criticism: the historical critic has to recognize honestly that
the Gospel accounts are incompatible. The view that the Gospels were not in historical order did
not, by and large (there were dissenters, especially in the 18th century), lead to the conclusion
that the Gospels are incompatible. The Gospels were thought to have a concordissima
dissonantia (harmonious dissonance), a phrase from Gerson.
213
The notion of a science of chronology in the 16th century aided this confidence. See
M. H. de Lang, Gospel Synopses from the 16th to the 18th Centuries and the Rise of Literary
Criticism of the Gospels, in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary
Criticism (ed. Camille Focant; BETL 110; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 599-610 at
604.
214
Rightly noted in Pesch, Ueber Evangelienharmonien, 234.

85
consequence,215 and the influential Catholic harmonist, Cornelius Jansen, similarly claimed that

Gersons order of events had no ratio.216 We find comments like these throughout the entire

three centuries of harmony writing considered here.217 The debate over ratio typically

concerned which Gospel(s) to prioritize and how and when one should incorporate the others,

since many assumed that, at any given time, at least one of the Gospels maintained the proper

chronology.218 But the discussion is not entirely bound by this assumption, and in attempt to

arrange the material critics advanced a number of arguments that would come to dominate Life

of Jesus research and even help construct a Galilean crisis. Two in particular are worthy of note.

One approach was to reconfigure the chronology according to circumstances that

individual stories in the Gospels seem to require.219 As some exegetes considered in the last

215
Chemnitz, Harmony of the Four Evangelists, Volume One, Book One, 13. He will later
note: there have been many who have neither examined nor set forth a voluntary or arbitrary
order of the accounts on the basis of the circumstances of the Gospel narrative itself but on the
basis of their own (or who knows whose) imaginations, no reasons for which they have
explained (31).
216
See Wnsch, Evangelienharmonien im Reformationszeitalter, 213.
217
Cf. e.g. Ellwood, Sacred History, iii (on Skip[ing] to and fro); Pilkington,
Evangelical History and Harmony, ix (laments the diverse and poor methods used by others to
ettle the Order of Facts).
218
E.g. (i) Paul Crell, Monotessaron historiae evangelicae (Wittenberg: s.n., 1566)
largely maintained Mark and John as they are and inserted Matthew and Luke as he found
appropriate; (ii) Bernard Lamys Commentarius in concordiam Evangelicam prioritized
Matthew, as he followed the Papias tradition on Mark (and assumed the same of Luke); (iii) and
Augustin Calmets brief harmony written in 1715, published later in a Latin translation by G. D.
Mansi in Commentarius literalis in omnes libros novi Testamenti, preferred Luke. On the last see
Christian Pesch, Die Evangelienharmonie seit dem 16. Jahrhundert (Ueber
Evangelienharmonien II), ZKT 10 (1886): 454-80 at 462-67.
219
It became popular to clarify the teachings of Jesus by drawing attention to the location
in which he delivered them, the idea being that Jesus modus dicendi was to draw analogies to
his physical setting. Isaac Newton had great interest in such matters, see Observations upon the
Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John (Dublin: S. Powell, 1733), 148: I oberve,
that Chrit and his forerunner John in their parabolical dicourses were wont to allude to things
preent. Edmund Law, Considerations on the Theory of Religion (4th ed; London: s.n., 1759
86
chapter, then, but now on a much greater scale, many harmonists assume that particular episodes

imply a backstory that may or may not be consistent with the Gospel framework in which they

stand.220 This contextual manner of weighing material would become a hugely influential feature

of later Jesus study, as we will discuss in due course.

Harmonists employed such inner-narrative criteria to identify the location of passages

significant for our interest in the crisis, including major discourses of Jesus,221 the

commissioning of the twelve,222 certain movements throughout Palestine,223 the feeding of the

[orig. 1745]), 302-11 comments at length on the suitability of Jesus teaching to context. He even
notes that if the connection is not evident, we have reaon to believe it chiefly owing to the
omiion of ome circumtances in the hitory (312).
220
It is noteworthy that Chemnitz had advocated for an arrangement according to a
principle of ancient rhetoric: a narration must be plausible via the circumstantiae of its
placement. See de Jonge, Sixteenth-century Gospel Harmonies,158. Cf. Chemnitz, Harmony of
the Four Evangelists, Volume One, Book One, 5: In very many important parts of the Gospel
narrative, therefore, one can seek out and show the order of times and things done on the basis of
the circumstances. Typically, however, the Chemnitz harmony would still maintain contact with
at least one Gospel chronology at a time. See J. H. A. Ebrard, The Gospel History: A Critical
Compendium of Critical Investigations (ed. Alexander B. Bruce; trans. James Martin; Edinburgh:
T and T Clark, 1863), 51.
221
Many figured that Lukes placement of the Sermon on the Plain a little later in the
ministry was a better location for Matthews Sermon on the Mount (viewed as the same event),
since Jesus had time to collect a larger following and call his twelve disciples. Whiston,
Harmony of the Four Evangelists, 104, would say that the Sermon in the Mount is much too
oon in Matthew, and he also writes this: Beides, the vat ucces of Chrits Preaching and his
mighty Fame throall the Neighboring Countreys, mentiond before this Sermon in St. Matthew,
and atteted to at the ame time by St. Mark and St. Luke, are good evidence, that a coniderable
time mut have pad ince the beginning of his public Minitry before this famous Sermon.
222
The codex Fuldensis had followed the sending of the disciples (Mark 6:7-13 and par)
with a series of narratives which presuppose the presence of the disciples. Luscinius Die gantz
euangelisch hystori (1525) identified this problem. See also Edward Wells, An Help for the More
Easy and Clear Understanding of the Holy Scriptures: Being the Four Gospels and the Acts of
the Apostles (Oxford: Theater, 1718), 101, 111 (the question from John the Baptist actually
happened a coniderable Time before Christs ending the Twelve to preach).
223
Cf. Samuel Nelson The History of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
(London: s.n., 1759), 39 (on Jesus move to Capernaum). Similar moves appear in
commentaries. Cf. e.g. Zachary Pearce, A Commentary, with Notes, on the Four Evangelists and
87
five thousand,224 parables,225 and the Galilean woes (Matt 11:20-24 and par).226 Like later

historians, therefore, Gospel harmonists already started the process of isolating certain passages,

inferring their probable historical context(s), and, if need be, reconfiguring the Gospel narratives

in response.

To demonstrate the point we can focus on the ever important Galilean woes. Calvin

found necessary to alter the Matthean framework to achieve a reasonable synthesis, and he

the Acts of the Apostles (London: E. Cox, 1777), 160 (on the lament over Jerusalem: from the
words how often, here added to them by Jeus, we may [I think] gather, that Jeus had been
preent at Jerualem more than onceduring his minitry, though neither Matthew, nor Mark, nor
Luke mention his going thither, till a few days before his crucifixion).
224
Some exegetes, including Ludolph discussed in the last chapter, figured that John 6
actually took place before John 5. See Simon du Corroys Pandecta legis evangelicae (1547).
Martin Bucer figured that the plot to kill Jesus for violating the Sabbath assumes that John 5:1
and 7:1ff belong together. See Irena Backus, The Chronology of John 5-7: Martin Bucers
Commentary (1528-36) and the Exegetical Tradition, in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the
Reformation, 141-55 at 151.
225
Many will explain that Jesus parabolic teaching responds to rejection. See Samuel
Cradock, The Harmony of the Four Evangelists, and the Text Methodizd According to the Order
and Series of Times, in which the Several Things by them Mentioned, were Transacted (London:
s.n., 1668), 180: eeing they (the Scribes and Pharisees) regarded not his former Doctrine
plainly delivered to them, wherein he taught the way to eternal life, nor were willing to be guided
by him, (thus) they hould not undertand the myteries of his Kingdom, nor what would be his
future Dipenations toward his Church. See also John Fleetwood, The Life of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ: Containing an Accurate and Universal History of our Glorious Redeemer
(2 vols; rev. ed.; Carlisle: L. Smith, 1792 [orig. 1767]), 1:136 (on the Parable of the Sower:
urely a more proper parable could not have been delivered when uch multitudes came to hear
his dicourses, and o few practied the precepts, or profited by the heavenly doctrines they
contained). The suggestion was also popular in the commentaries. Cf. e.g. Johann Bengel (with
M. E. Bengel and J. C. F. Steudel), Gnomon of the New Testament (5 vols.; trans. James
Bandinel and Andrew R. Fausset; 3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1858 [orig. 1742]), 1:284
(Our Lord, therefore, did not speak to the people in parables without a cause. And nevertheless
He had often before spoken to them without parables, out of compassionand they had not
profited); Johann C. Koecher, Analecta philologica et exegetica in quatuor SS. Evangelia
(Altenburg: Richteria, 1766), 276.
226
For a discussion of placement see Pilkington, Evangelical History and Harmony, 22-
23. He mentions two main options: a) to follow Luke; b) to move the woes to the sending of the
Twelve (which does not agree with Matthew or Luke).

88
preferred Lukes placement during the sending of the Seventy. He also added a key detail that

the Twelve had returned from their first mission (which Matthew does not mention). Thus,

according to Calvins creation, the woes reflect a rejection of the preaching in those cities. He

explained:

Luke states the time when, and the reason why, Christ uttered such invectives against
those cities. It was while he was sending the disciples away into various parts of Judea,
to proclaim, as they passed along, that the kingdom of God was at hand. Reflecting on
the ingratitude of those among whom he had long discharged the office of a prophet, and
performed many wonderful works, without any good result, he broke out into these
words, announcing that the time was now come, when he should depart to other cities,
having learned, by experience, that the inhabitants of the country adjoining that lake,
among whom he had begun to preach the Gospel and perform miracles, were full of
obstinacy and of desperate malice227

Calvins reading of the Galilean woes, then, assumes that they spell a certain doom over the

named cities. They imply a backstory that the Gospels themselvesparticularly Matthew, but

Luke as wellhad not fully explained.228

Others spin similar historical narratives, particularly in 17th- and 18th-century harmonies

and paraphrases. For Bishop Lightfoot, a sense of finality in the woes led him to rethink Jesus

reception in the rest of the Galilean ministry. He explained that Jesus told the family of Jairus to

remain quiet because that city (Capernaum) had justly forfeited all such revelations of him.229

That is, the message of the Galilean woes, which Lightfoot believes Jesus delivered at an earlier

227
Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists, 2:26-27. On Calvins general reservations about
delivering an exact historical chronology of events see de Lang, Gospel Synopses from the 16th
to the 18th Centuries, 603.
228
Here see Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (ed. Leslie F. Church;
repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978 [orig. 1708-10]), 126: He began to preach to them long
before (ch. iv. 17), but he did not begin to upbraid till now. Rough and unpleasing methods must
not be taken, till gentler means have first been used. Christ is not apt to upbraid. Wisdom first
invites, but when her invitations are slighted, then she upbraids (italics orig.).
229
Lightfoot, Harmony, Chronicle and Order of the New Testament, 88.

89
point, still applies here and explains Jesus curious secrecy after this miracle.230 Lightfoot thinks

it illogical to suppose that Jesus would pronounce judgment on these cities and then continue his

ministry in them as before. For him the woes paint a picture that is bigger than their frames in

Matthew and Luke.

Interestingly enough, other harmonists will favor the Lukan placement of the woes and

omit them from their location in Matthew, undoubtedly because they were deemed better suited

to the end of Jesus Galilean tenure. A comment in Joseph Priestleys harmony in the late 18th

century speaks for many before him:

According to the preent order of Matthews gopel, Jeus pronounces the woe upon
Chorazin and other places in that neighbourhood, xi. 20. before he had made one half of
his tay in Galilee for that time; whereas it is more natural to uppofe, with Mark (sic) and
Luke, that he pronounced it jut before taking his leave of Galilee, in order to go to
Jerualem, when the inhabitants of thoe cities had had more opportunities of eeing his
miracles, and hearing his intructions.231

The reading anticipates the logic of a Galilean crisis not only in terms of method, but also

content.

A second ordering technique is slightly more detached from the Gospels than the prior

one: namely, harmonization on the basis of common sense when considering certain stories or

even thematic issues in the abstract. A comment in Jean Leclercs Harmonia evangelica is

exemplary: gaps in the narrative (circumstantiae omissae) can be filled in by using intuition

230
Cradock, Harmony of the Four Evangelists, 11, wrestles with a similar issue with the
healing of the blind man outside Bethsaida, an event he believes happened after the Galilean
woes. He comments: And though the greater part of the Inhabitants of that place, as it eems,
were o obtinate, that there was little hope of their repentance, yet he is willing to ue means for
the converion of ome of them, which might be more tractable.
231
Joseph Priestley, Harmony of the Evangelists, in Greek (London: J. Johnson, 1777),
90. He also says: It is not improbable but that our Lord might have ued the ame expreions
more than once or twiceLuke might introduce it where he has done, as being mot pertinent on
our Lords taking his final leave of Galilee (94). Further: this olemn denunciation might refer
to what would be the conequence of all his preaching in Galilee (94, italics orig.).

90
when there may be no textual evidence to use.232 Such a process of gap-filling, especially by

supplying emotions or intentions to Jesus and/or his opponents (what later researchers will call

psychologization),233 becomes increasingly popular in later harmonistic work. Here authors

treat the Gospel frameworks with greater flexibility, extracting some or many pericopae from

their original contexts and rearranging them in settings that befit the authors judgment alone.234

A growing skepticism about the reliability of the Gospel chronologies encouraged this approach,

since it placed more weight on the harmonists ability to fashion the course of Jesus life in a

reasonable matter. Edmund Law (1745) clearly recognized the predicament: the Gospels record

many naked facts without mention of their motive or occasion.235

Harmonists proposed a number of different possible solutions to this dilemma of

rearrangement. Matthew Pilkington tried to proceed by eparating the ditinct Paages, and

connecting thoe only which have a proper and neceary Relation to each other.236 Robert Wait

similarly focused on uch connections as circumtances of the hitory eemed necearily to

232
Jean Leclerc, Harmonia evangelica cui subjecta est historia Christi ex quatuor
Evangeliis concinnata (Amsterdam: s.n., 1699), 519. Spinozas form of historical criticism was
likely influential here, since he regarded it necessary to reconstruct a proper historical setting for
biblical events that was natural. In his words: to interpret Scripture, we need to assemble a
genuine history of it and to deduce the thinking of the Bibles authors by valid inferences from
this history, as from certain data and principles. Cited in Jeffrey L. Morrow, Historical
Criticism as Secular Allegorism: The Case of Spinoza, Letter and Spirit 8 (2012-13): 189-222
at 209. On Spinozas influence see also R. H. Popkin, Spinoza and Bible Scholarship, in The
Books of Nature and Scripture (eds. J. E. Force and R. H. Popkin; Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer,
1994), 1-20.
233
E.g. Newton, Prophecies of Daniel, 147: Jesus, being afraid of the Pharisees,
departed to Galilee after Johns arrest.
234
See Johann D. Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament (4 vols.; trans. Herbert
nd
Marsh; 2 ed.; London: F. and C. Rivington, 1802 [orig. 1750]), 3:61, 63, on the Pharisees
telling Jesus to leave Galilee (Luke 13:31), and the Samaritans rejecting Jesus (Luke 9:51-56).
235
Law, Considerations on the Theory of Religion, 268 (italics orig.).
236
Pilkington, Evangelical History and Harmony, ix.

91
require.237 Joseph Priestley went further still: he cut out all the pages of two printed Bibles and

arranged them on a large table according to his own historical judgment. He even rejected

initially the approaches of other harmonists: (I) reolutely avoided o much as looking into any

harmony whatoever.238 Priestley praised his mechanical methods and his focus on cause and

effect.239 This atomization of the tradition and the employment of a historical common sense is

significant not because these harmonists reconstructed a Galilean crisis in the process, but

because the approach will become a norm of later Jesus research and a prerequisite for the crisis

theory.

(iv) Key results. A fourth contribution of harmony writing before Reimarus is that many

reach conclusions that approximate key elements of the crisis theory. In particular, we have

harmonies that indicate a successful beginning to Jesus Galilean ministry and, for some,

growing opposition throughout it.240 Luscinius 1524 summarized harmony is an example, which

237
Robert Wait, The Gospel-History, from the Text of the Four Evangelists (Edinburgh:
Sands et al., 1765), vi.
238
Priestley, Harmony of the Evangelists, xvi-ii. The refusal to look at any other harmony
probably has to do with Priestleys materialism.
239
Priestley, Harmony of the Evangelists, 71, also 76. The influence of the scientific
revolution and empiricism can be found in many harmonies from this period. This is especially
evident in the interest in causation and the understanding of history as a chain of cause and
effect. See Dawes, Historical Jesus Question, 30. James P. Martin, Toward a Post-Critical
Paradigm, NTS 33 (1987): 370-85 at 374, makes this insightful point: There is probably(a)
correspondence between the change from a fourfold to single (efficient) causalism in the science
in the 17th century and the triumph of the single past-historical sense of Scripture in scientific
biblical interpretation.
On early success see Fleetwood, Life of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 57: Jesus
240

preaching was at firt attended with great succes, for they litened attentively to his doctrine,
and received it with particular kindnes and courtey (he also believes there was early opposition
from the Jewish leaders, 60).

92
begins the ert iar der predig des herren241 by growing the mission field and gathering to this

early point the call of the twelve, the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plane, and other

stories in and around Capernaum.242 Also noteworthy is the fascinating harmony by Gerhard

Mercator (1592), which employs as a criterion for placement the emotional intensity of Jesus

conflict with opponents.243 The criterion assumes the more intense, the later the placement.

In addition, we know that Epiphanius idea (discussed in Chapter 2) about a period of

welcome and a period of rejection was a topic of conversation. Chemnitz explicitly mentions the

notion, as well as Epiphanius himself, and offers a qualified endorsement.244 Others are more

supportive still. Jeremy Taylors more biographical Life of our Blessed Saviour (1649), for

example, comments on the healing of two blind men and a demon possessed man in Matt 9:27-

34:

the Pharisees could hold no longer, being ready to burst with fury, and said, he cast out
devils by the help of devils.This was the first eruption of their rage, for all the last year,
which was the first of Jesus preaching, all was quiet, neither the Jews nor the
Samaritans, nor the Galileans did malign his doctrine or person, but he preached with
much peace on all hands, for this was the year which the prophet Isaiah called in his
prediction, the accepted year of the Lord.245

241
Othmar Nachtgall (Luscinius), Die Evangelisch Hystori (1524 und 1525) (ed. Petra
Hrner; Berlin: Weidler, 2008), 9.
242
Luscinius, Evangelisch Hystori, 9-12.
243
Hence Mercator thought that Luke 6-8 happened before John 5. Cf. Wnsch,
Evangelienharmonien im Reformationszeitalter, 253 note 7.
244
Chemnitz, Harmony of the Four Evangelists, Volume One, Book Two, 191, says,
contra Epiphanius, that Jesus did have some enemies during His first year, referring to Jesus
first cleansing of the temple (John 2:18-25), as well as the temptation by Satan. Though he also
says: this account in which Christ flees because of imminent persecution, seems to belong to the
second year (163).
245
Jeremy Taylor, The Life of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ (repr.; Somerset: J & J
Patton, 1818 [orig. 1649]), 82.

93
For Taylor this is not an isolated motif. He further remarks that, before Jesus departed for

Jerusalem, he went up and down the cities of Galilee, inforcing the doctrines he had taught

them, and adding new precepts, advertising them of the multitudes of those that perish, and how

few shall be saved, and that they should strive to enter into the straight gate; the way to

destruction being fair and plausible, but the way to heaven very difficult.246 To cluster such

gloomy words near the end of the Galilean ministry is clearly intentional on the authors part. It

requires one pull warnings and threats from all over the Synoptics to this location.

As a final example, Bengel supposed chronological transference (trajectionem)

necessary for an accurate harmony,247 and in his Gospel outlines he identified gradually

increasing stages of opposition to Jesus. For his outline of Luke, he divided Jesus time in

Capernaum into three stages, whereby Jesus acts are not censured by adversaries (ab

adverariis non reprehena), are censuredwith gradually increasing severity (ab adverariis,

paulatim gravius, reprehena), and were different in relation to the various persons with whom

he met.248

A clear conclusion, then: the presence of an early success and growing opposition motif

in many notable works demonstrates that Gospel harmonies and paraphrases had already

popularized ideas that Hase and other 19th-century critics would later elaborate into the notion of

246
Taylor, Life of our Blessed Saviour, 111.
247
John Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testament (2nd ed.; Tbingen: Schrammii, 1750 [orig.
1742]), praef. d 3.
248
Bengel, Gnomon, 221. Bengels fascination with chronology is well known. See
Baird, From Deism to Tbingen, 71; Julien Lambinet, Les principes de la mthode exgtique
de J.A. Bengel (1687-1752), pitiste du Wrttemberg, ETL 89 (2013): 253-78 at 264.

94
two periods in the ministry. The notion of early success and growing opposition had already

become a convenient summary of the course of Jesus ministry as a whole.249

As for the other three considerations in this chapter, we can conclude with this: the three

centuries of harmony writing before Reimarus produced not a Galilean crisis in toto, but it did

advance many of the assumptions and methodological approaches that are integral to it.

3.3. FREETHINKERS AND DEISTS

We also cannot properly grasp the prehistory of the Quest without mention of those typically

situated outside orthodox boundaries: that is, those frequently called freethinkers and/or Deists

in the 17th and 18th centuries.250 These critics were also interested in Jesus and early Christianity,

although they were not, in general, devoted to the writing of harmonies or biographies of

249
It also appears to have influenced the largely forgotten work by French Atheist Baron
dHolbach in 1770, entitled Ecce Homo: Histoire Crtique de Jesus Christ, ou Analyse raisonne
des Evangiles. A critical edition has been translated into English: Ecce homo! An Eighteenth
Century Life of Jesus: Critical Edition and Revision of George Houstons Translation from the
French (ed. Andrew Hunwick; History of Religions in Translation 1; Berlin; New York: de
Gruyter, 1995). Note at 114-15 (Jesus reputation was so great in Galilee and the troop of
Jesus adherents grew), 119, 124, 134 (Jesus closed the first year of his mission in glorious
manner); for opposition see 134 (in Jerusalem Jesus meets opposition he had [not] hoped for),
169 (It seems that one dayhe distinctly avowed that he had changed his resolution in regard to
the Jews, and meant to abandon their conversion; and that this was the reason he spoke to them
in parables), 173 (lack of success, due solely, it was claimed, to the weakness of their faith,
would seem to cast some doubt over the foresight and penetration of their divine master), 192
(Despised and rejected on every side, he presumed, quite sensibly, that being once excluded
from all the provinces, and the Gentiles being not much inclined to receivehe would be
constrained sooner or later to return to Jerusalem, where he must expect to meet with perilous
adventures).
250
On some definitional issues associated with the Deists and others see John Orr,
English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1934), 13-18; Gnter
Gawlick, Der Deismus als Grundzug der Religionsphilosophie der Aufklrung, Hermann
Samuel Reimarus, 15-43 at 18 (there is no Deist schule); David Pailin, British Views on
Religion and Religions in the Age of William and Mary, Method and Theory in the Study of
Religion 6 (1994): 349375 at 354; Diego Lucci, Scripture and Deism: The Biblical Criticism of
the Eighteenth-Century British Deists (SEMEC 3; Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 2008), 17-63.

95
Jesus.251 Instead, the vast majority of their reflection concerned isolated issues such as

miracles252 (especially the resurrection),253 the reliability of the Gospels,254 the fate of proof-

from-prophecy,255 and textual criticism.256 Others have rightly notedthough most often with

generalities and not specifics257such discussions make Reimarus appear far less original than

commonly assumed.258

251
Cf. Brown, Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 53; Pals, Victorian Lives, 24;
Kissinger, Lives of Jesus, 14; Paget, Quests for the Historical Jesus, 140-41.
Cf. Gawlick, Deismus als Grundzug, 29-30; Pals, Victorian Lives, 23; James A.
252

Herrick, The Radical Rhetoric of the English Deists: The Discourse of Skepticism (1680-1750)
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997), 145-80.
253
Cf. William Lane Craig, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus
During the Deist Controversy (Lewiston: Queenston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1985), 252-96;
Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought
(2nd ed.; Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 233.
Cf. James Carleton Paget, Quests for the Historical Jesus, in The Cambridge
254

Companion to Jesus (ed. Markus Bockmuehl; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001),
138-55 at 141; Baird, From Deism to Tbingen, 39-57.
255
Here esp. Anthony Collins, A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian
Religion (London: s.n., 1724).
256
See Richard Simon (and Andrew Hunwick), Critical History of the Text of the New
Testament: Wherein is Established the Truth of the Acts on which the Christian Religion is Based
(Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013 [orig. 1689]). Cf. Lyle O. Bristol, New Testament Textual
Criticism in the Eighteenth Century, JBL 69 (1950): 101-12; Henning Graf Reventlow,
Richard Simon und seine Bedeutung fr die kritische Erforschung der Bibel, in Historische
Kritik in der Theologie: Beitrge zu ihrer Geschichte (ed. Georg Schwaiger; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 11-36.
257
E.g. Helen K. Bond, The Quest for the Historical Jesus: An Appraisal, in The
Blackwell Companion to Jesus (ed. Delbert Burkett; Malden: Blackwell, 2011), 337-54 at 338.
For a more detailed study, see Jonathan Birch, The Road to Reimarus: Origins of the Quest of
the Historical Jesus, in Holy Land as Homeland? (ed. Keith W. Whitelam; SWBA 7; Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011), 19-47.
A few examples: (i) Jesus did not reject Judaism and did not found a new religion;
258

cf. John Toland, Nazarenus: or, Jewish, Gentile, and Mahometan Christianity (London: J.
Brown, J. Roberts, J. Brotherson, 1718), vi (Jesus did not take away or cancel the Jewish law in
an ene whatoever). For discussion and other sources see Matti Myllykoski, Christian Jews
96
 In addition to a collective disinterest in harmonies, most of these writers left Jesus alone.

While there was mass defection from certain creedal positions on Christology, as well as a

general propensity to conceive of Jesus in a purely human manner, critics mostly regarded Jesus

a noble ethical teacher and in many ways the ideal enlightened man.259 The notion that Jesus

message changed was not, at this point, a popular one. Instead, Jesus message, often identified

with a universal natural religion,260 was largely assumed to be consistent. Thus, the liberal

Anglican Bishop Edmund Law expresses a common sentiment when he says that (Jesus

pursued) one plain and uniform deign.261 In fact, writers often treat Jesus teachings in the

and Jewish Christians: The Jewish Origins of Christianity in English Literature from Elizabeth
I to Tolands Nazarenus, in The Rediscovery of Jewish Christianity: From Toland to Baur (ed.
F. Stanley Jones; SBLHBS 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 3-44 at 30-36. (ii)
The disciples stole the body; cf. Thomas Woolston discussed in Brown, Jesus in European
Protestant Thought, 41. (iii) The disciples (and early Christian leaders generally) sought power
and wealth; cf. the response already in Grotius, The Truth of the Christian Religion, with Jean Le
Clercs Notes and Additions (trans. John Clarke; ed. Maria Rosa Antognazza; Indianapolis:
Liberty Fund, 2012 [orig. 1627]), 103. (iv) Jesus kingdom was this-worldly; cf. Thomas
Hobbes, The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (ed. William Molesworth; 11
vols.; London: John Bohn, 1839-1845), 3:397: the kingdom of God is a kingdom properly so
named (italics orig.). Also: The kingdom therefore of God is a real, not a metaphorical
kingdom (402).
259
Alister E. McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology: From the
Enlightenment to Pannenberg (Oxford; New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 13, summarizes a
christological trope from this time: Christ possessed to a greater degree what every man has
latent within him. On the Enlightenment see Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967), 3-27; Jonathan I. Israel, Radical Enlightenment:
Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3-
22.
260
See Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion: A History (New York: Charles Scribners
Sons, 1975), 16-19; Peter Harrison, Religion and the Religions in the English Enlightenment
(Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1990), 28-60.
261
Law, Considerations on the Theory of Religion, 302. Also: In hort, his whole life
was a lecture of true practical philoophy (ibid). There is some socio-political subtext to such
views, since it was common to view enthusiasmesp. in the purported religious experiences
of Methodists and Pietiests and othersas counter to the calm, composed, and rational nature of
true religion. Cf. Samuel Clarkes comment in David Hartley, Observations on Man: His Fame,
97
Gospels as a monolithic whole, agreeable to generalizations such as the doctrine of Christ or

the law of Jesus or the teaching of Christ and the like.262 Change, disruption, and

inconsistency in Christianity stemmed not from Jesus but from his followers (especially the

leaders).263 Here the Reformations distinction between Scripture and Tradition, and the

His Duty, and His Expectations (Scholars Facsimiles & Reprints; Gainesville: Scholars
Facsimiles & Reprints, 1966 [orig. 1749]), 490: (a student of the life of Christ) cannot without
the extremest malice and obstinancy in the world charge him with enthusiasm. Cf. T. L.
Bushell, The Sage of Salisbury: Thomas Chubb 1679-1747 (New York: Philosophical Library,
1967), 138, claims that in Chubbs view the imagination and the understanding of Jesus(was
such that) the gospel may justifiably be deemed a kind of verbal embodiment of the Law of
Nature.
262
Cf. e.g. The Racovian Catechism, with Notes and Illustrations (trans. Thomas Rees;
London: Longman et al., 1818), cvii (we observe that the Church is the less polluted, the nearer
it is to those who received the divine wisdom with their own ears); John Locke, The
Reasonableness of Christianity (ed. John C. Higgins-Biddle; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999
[orig. 1695]), 132; John Toland, Christianity Not Mysterious: or, A Treatise Shewing, That there
is Nothing in the Gospel Contrary to Reason (London: s.n., 1702), 49; Thomas Jefferson, The
Jefferson Bible: With the Annotated Commentaries on Religion of Thomas Jefferson (ed. O. I. A.
Roche; New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1964 [orig. 1895]), 326 (the most sublime and
benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man). Though Jefferson did think that
some of Jesus teachings were ignoble and confined to his time, see Orr, English Deism, 215.
263
It was commoly thought that those who came after Jesus obfuscated his teachings and
developed elaborate and speculative theories about his person, the nature and organization of the
church, and the sacraments. See e.g. Toland, Christianity Not Mysterious, 71. Cf. Henning Graf
Reventlow, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World (trans. John Bowden;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 300-301. On the perceived simplicity of earliest Christianity
see David S. Katz, Gods Last Words: Reading the English Bible from the Reformation to
Fundamentalism (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2004), 136-37; Margaret C.
Jacob, The Enlightenment Critique of Christianity, in Enlightenment, Reawakening and
Revolution 1660-1815 (vol. 7 of The Cambridge History of Christianity; eds. Stewart J. Brown
and Timothy Tackett; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 265-82 at 269. Orr,
English Deism, 31, generalizes: (the Deists) claimed Jesus to be of their party. The influence of
anticlericalism on this reconstruction of Christian origins has been well documented. See S. J.
Barnett, Idol Temples and Crafty Priests: The Origins of Enlightenment Anticlericalism (New
York: St. Martins Press, 1999).

98
privileging of the former over the latter, developed into a distinction between Jesus own

intentions and the opinions of those who came after him.264

If, therefore, these figures produced few harmonies or Lives, and did not suppose any

noteworthy crisis, change, or development in Jesus teaching, then what is the point of treating

them for our purposes? Simply put: we find in these works the solidifying of certain theological

and historical perspectives that will encourage, and in some cases require, the development of a

crisis theory by later scholars. This becomes apparent in light of common approaches to Jesus

teaching, his atoning death, and his announcement of coming judgment.

What happens is this. Beginning with the work of Italian theologian Faustus Socinus

(1539-1604), the issue of the purpose of Jesus ministry was up for debate in ways never before

seen. There had always been different views on the nature of the atonement, to be sure.265 But, as

mentioned in the last chapter, there was widespread agreement among Christian interpreters that

Jesus death was not an afterthought or a mistake, but was rather integral to the saving mission of

the incarnation itself. For Socinus, however, the matter was not so straightforward. In his De

Jesu Christo servatore (1578), he argued that Jesus of Nazareth (who was not a preexistent

being) saved humanity by means of his teaching and obedient life to Gods will, not by atoning

for sins on the cross.266 The fundamental aim or telos of Jesus ministry, then, was to persuade

264
See here Thomas Chubb, The True Gospel of Jesus Christ Asserted (London: Thomas
Cox, 1738), 46: the gopel of Jeus Chrit is not any particular private opinion of any, or of all
the writers of the hitory of his life and minitry; norof all thoe whom he ent out to publih his
gopel to the world (italics orig.).
265
Cf. Paul R. Eddy and James Beilby, The Atonement: An Introduction, in The Nature
of the Atonement: Four Views (eds. James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy; Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2006), 9-22.
266
Sarah Mortimer, Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of
Socinianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 15. See also Jan Rohls,
Calvinism, Arminianism and Socinianism in the Netherlands until the Synod of Dort, in
99
his contemporaries to live righteous lives and to follow his moral example.267 The cross was

simply a lived parable of his ethic and a pledge that God would also vindicate those who

sacrifice all for the life of virtue. The death of Jesus, then, while not insignificant, is secondary

to, and exemplary of, his teaching and ethical demand.268 Jesus dies a martyr for his own cause.

Socinus himself was not a historical critic. He grounded his proposals in an extreme form

of biblicismwhich he inherited from the Reformation269and the submission of any and all

theological tradition to sound reason. But Socinus contributions spurred widespread

discussion and even merited an entire treatise from Grotius (De satisfactione) which defended

Anselms doctrine of satisfaction.270 Grotius refutation functioned to bring the debate into

sharper relief, and he even agreed in part with Socinus on a few issues.271

Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in

Seventeenth-Century Europe (eds. Martin Muslow and Jan Rohls; BSIH 134; Leiden; Boston:
Brill, 2005), 3-48 at 23: believing in Christ meant converting to Him out of free will in
obedience to His commands and doing good works. Christ here loses His Divine nature, and sin
its harshness.
267
Cf. Mortimer, Reason and Religion, 235, on the Socinians influence of linking the
teaching of Jesus with natural moral philosophy.
268
On the prevalence of Christ as teacher see James P. Martin, The Last Judgment in
Protestant Theology from Orthodoxy to Ritschl (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 96-99, 121;
Baird, From Deism to Tbingen, 43, 52-57; McGrath, Making of Modern German Christology,
13.
269
Cf. Klaus Scholder, The Birth of Modern Critical Theology: Origins and Problems of
Biblical Criticism in the Seventeenth Century (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press;
Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990 [orig. 1966]), 33-38; Nicholas Keene, A Two-Edged Sword:
Biblical Criticism and the New Testament Canon in Early Modern England, in Scripture and
Scholarship in Early Modern England (eds. Ariel Hessayon and Nicholas Keene; Aldershot;
Burlington: Ashgate, 2006), 94-115 at 94: it is one of the defining paradoxes of early modern
Protestantism that its elevation of the written record of divine revelation to totemic status
stimulated an explosion of scholarship that would ultimately serve to forge a critical discipline
that could be mimicked and manipulated to undermine the sacred text it had been designed to
protect.
270
Hugo Grotius, A Defense of the Catholic Faith concerning the Satisfaction of Christ,
Against Faustus Socinus (trans. Frank Hugh Foster; Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1889 [orig.
100
 Now whether by the influence of Socinianism or by some other means,272 this emphasis

on Jesus ethical teaching, call for repentance, and obedient lifeeither to the exclusion or

downplaying of his sacrificial deathfinds in later years a number of adamant supporters.273

Many would find in the doctrine of atonement, especially the Calvinistic idea of penal

substitution, a sorry model of divine violence. So too, it was common to think that such

atonement theories fueled an antinomianism that encouraged Christians to confide in their own

miraculous salvation and even be willing to kill over theological disagreement.274 Many

1617]). Grotius explains that, in Socinus view, the death of Christ persuades us to exercise that
which is requisite to obtaining remission of sins; viz. faith, or, as Socinus himself explains it, the
hope of obtaining eternal life (44). The cross, then, furthers the preaching of repentance. See
Debora Kuller Shuger, The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity (Waco:
Baylor University Press, 2010), 57-60.
271
See Hans W. Bolm, Grotius and Socinianism, in Muslow and Rohls, Socinianism
and Arminianism, 121-47. Grotius himself faced, and faces, the charge of promoting Socinian
principles intentionally or unintentionally. Cf. Fiammetta Palladini, The Image of Christ in
Grotiuss De Veritate Religionis Christianae: Some Thoughts on Grotiuss Socinianism,
Grotiana 33 (2012): 58-69.
272
A comment of Earl M. Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism: Socinianism and its
Antecedents (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946), 45 that still holds true: To ascertain
the extent to which Socinian thought was disseminated in England during the early years of the
seventeenth century is not easy. Harnack famously, and perhaps overzealously, supposed a
direct correlation between Socinus and the Enlightenment. See Adolph Harnack, Lehrbuch der
Dogmengeschichte (3 vols.; 4th ed.; Tbingen: Mohr, 1910), 3:784-808. For a recent assessment,
see Lucci, Scripture and Deism, 58-59.
273
A noteworthy example: Lockes Reasonableness of Christianity was criticized for
having omitted the notion of the atonement, which Locke denied. However, he could only find
two passages from the book in his defense, which (as Higgins-Biddle rightly notes, li) probably
took him awhile to find. See the discussion in Archibald Campbell, The Authenticity of the
Gospel-History Justified: and the Truth of the Christian Revelation Demonstrated (2 vols.;
Edinburgh: Hamilton, Balfour, and Neill, 1759), 1:xli-iii, xlv. Cf. comments on Isaac Newton in
Stephen David Snobelen, Isaac Newton, Socinianism and The One Supreme God, in Muslow
and Rohls, Socinianism and Arminianism, 241-98 at 263.
274
See discussion in Lawrence Jackson, An Examination of a Book Intituled The True
Gospel of Jesus Christ Asserted, by Thomas Chubb (London: s.n., 1739), 154-55, 193; Campbell,
The Authenticity of the Gospel-History, xlv.

101
prominent critics further argued that linking sacrifice or blood-letting with forgiveness of sins

was primitive and irrational.275 To find the truth of Christianity, it was necessary to scrape away

such cultural residue from its origins to reveal a purer form: a rational, natural religion that

teaches love of neighbor and a practical or simple faith.276

The upshot is that there developed in some circles a well established contrast between

Jesus ethical teaching, on the one hand, and the notion of his saving or expiatory death, on the

other.277 To be sure, some before had identified a similar tension in the Gospel tradition (even on

the basis of many of the same texts),278 or had at least claimed that, for pedagogical reasons,

Jesus ministry began with ethical teaching or the moral law and only later turned to issues of

atonement.279 But these rationalists have more difficulty reconciling the two. Ironically, Luther

275
Cf. e.g. Charles Blount, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, or, The Original of Idolatry
Together with the Politick Institution of the Gentiles Sacrifices (London: s.n., 1680), 14-15. It
was customary to regard the Old Testament law as an accommodation to pagan religion,
inherited from the Egyptians. See Katz, Gods Last Words, 146-47. On the influence of Grotius
here see Shuger, Renaissance Bible, 83.
276
See Arthur Bury, The Naked Gospel (London: s.n., 1690), 28. See also James Murray,
The History of Religion: Particularly of the Principal Dominations of the Christians (4 vols.; 2nd
ed; London: C. Henderson, W. Nicoll, and J. Johnson, 1764 [orig. 1744]), 1:1. Cf. Harrison,
Religion and the Religions, 45-49.
Cf. Helena Rosenblatt, The Christian Enlightenment, in Brown and Tackett,
277

Enlightenment, Reawakening and Revolution, 283-301 at 284-87.

278
Esp. Jesus preaching of repentance, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Rich Young
Ruler.
279
Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1349) and John Baconthorpe (1290-1347) proposed that the
distinction between the OT and the NT explained the organization of the Gospel of Matthew. Cf.
Christopher Ocker, Scholastic Interpretation of the Bible, in The Medieval Through the
Reformation Periods (vol. 2 of A History of Biblical Interpretation; eds. Alan J. Hauser and
Duane F. Watson; Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009), 254-91 at 269. Chrysostom
suggested that Jesus abolished the law gradually (paulatim), though it is not clear how he
worked this out, see Hom. Jo. 42.1 (PG 59:239-40). See also anonym., Treatise of the Three
Imposters 313 in Anderson, Problem of the Enlightenment, 24 (Jesus at first defended the law,
but when he had made himself more famous, he overturned it almost totally); Robert Miller,
The History of the Propagation of Christianity and the Overthrow of Paganism, Wherein the
102
and especially later Protestant Reformers may be in some ways responsible for the seemingly

insurmountable nature of the divide, since a radical contrast between Law and Gospel made it

natural for post-Reformation thinkers to lump ethics and atonement into contrary soteriological

systems. In fact, in many Lutheran readings of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus preaches Law

(works) to confound his hearers and drive them to trust in the grace of the Gospel (Christs

work for them).280 The reading assumes the message of the Sermon on the Mount, if taken

literally, is contrary to the message of the cross. It is not a coincidence that many freethinkers

and Deists openly embraced what their opponents would call Pelagianism.281

The significance of the tension for our purposes is simple: it became difficult for many

later interpreters to think that Jesus ethics (including his calls for repentance) and his expiatory

death could co-exist in the same rational system. Consider the following sentiments:

Lord Herbert, who traced atonement theories to the influence of pagan priests,
claimed that the Heathens eteemed Repentance the Univeral Atonement or
Sacrament of Nature. But now the Priet began to obcure and involve it in
multiplicity of dark Rites and Ceremonies; that they might make Men believe they

Christian Religion is Confirmed (2 vols.; 2nd ed; London: G. Strahan et al., 1726 [orig. 1723]),
1:404 (after baptism, Jesus particularly explained the Moral Law, retoring it to its jut
Authority over the Minds of Men). Cf. Ochs, Matthaeus Adversus Christianos, 47.
280
Cf. Martin Luthers comments on Matt 5:17 in The Sermon on the Mount (vol. 21 of
Luthers Works; ed. and trans. Jaroslav Pelikan; St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 67: He does not
discuss the great chief doctrine of faith here. Instead, He begins from the bottom by clarifying
and commending the Law, which their Pharisees and scribes had completely obscured and
distorted. Hence the point of saying your righteousness must exceed the Pharisees and the
scribes is to surprise the audience by telling them that even the most righteous people in Israel
are going to hell (73). For a very brief discussion of the history of interpretation see Ulrich Luz,
Matthew: A Commentary (trans. James E. Crouch; 3 vols.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2001-2007), 1:177-81.
281
See Orr, English Deism, 35, 69. Note that C. W. F. Walchs History of Heresies
(1762-85) did not believe that Pelagianism should be considered a heresy. See Heinrich Holze,
Pelagianism, in The Encyclopedia of Christianity (eds. Erwin Fahlbusch, Geoffrey W.
Bromiley et al.; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999-2008), 4:124-126 at 126.

103
 only had the Power and Authority of Divine Myteries.282 He believed atonement
theories encouraged antinomianism.283

Charles Blount argued against the claim that one cannot be accepted by God apart
from propitiation, by claiming that Sorrow and a true Repentance rather suffice,
as Reaon dictates without Revelation.284

Thomas Chubb wrote an entire volume dedicated to the great end, and the
profeed deign of our Lord Jeus Chrits coming into the world as well as the
method Chrit took, and the means he made ue of in order to obtain that end.285
That end and method were this: Jesus preached certain doctrinal propoitions
founded upon the uppoition of a Deity in hopes to might bring about action in
men as might reform their vices and rightly direct and govern their minds and
lives. 286 Jesus aimed not to point out any new way to Gods favour via, e.g.,
his atoning death. Rather, he taught that good old way which always was.287
Jesus reply to the Rich Young Ruler demonstrates, he claims, the only ground
of divine acceptanceis keeping the commandments.288

Thomas Morgan stressed that Judaism in Jesus time needed a true national
Repentance, a trict Regard to the moral Law since Reliance upon Sacrifices

282
Edward Herbert of Cherbury, The Ancient Religion of the Gentiles, and the Causes of
their Errors Considered (trans. William Lewis; London: John Nutt, 1705), 318 (italics orig.).
283
Lord Herbert, Ancient Religion of the Gentiles, 319 (For what is it that a wicked
Wretch will not perpetrate, who can make uch an eay Atonement for his Sins?). Essentially the
same view appears in the work of Blount, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. At one point he
associates sacrifice with Fables and Fictions proposed by pagan priests, not with the Virtue
and Piety advanced by the philosophers (3). On Herberts influence on later thinkers in this
regard see Orr, English Deists, 213. For similar views in Toland see Lucci, Scripture and Deism,
78-79, 101-02, 112, 118.
284
Charles Blount, The Miscellaneous Works of Charles Blount (London: s.n., 1695),
209-10.
285
Chubb, True Gospel of Jesus Christ, iii.
286
Chubb, True Gospel of Jesus Christ, 16-17 (see also 102).
287
Chubb, True Gospel of Jesus Christ, 30 (see also 36).
288
Chubb, True Gospel of Jesus Christ, 27. Cf. Reventlow, Authority of the Bible, 387;
Alister E. McGrath, Soteriology, in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought
(ed. Alister E. McGrath; Oxford; Cambridge: Blackwell, 1993), 616-26 at 618; Lucci, Scripture
and Deism, 199-200.

104
 and prietly Abolutions was not found abolutely neceary to a national
Retoration.289 In fact, he argued that the reliance of the people on such
supernatural absolutions, without any Regard to their own moral Conduct290
was precisely what the Old Testament prophets, and then Jesus, opposed. He
stated the issue clearly: I think, (it) is very trange, that Jeus Chrit, or any other
Lawgiver in the World, hould uffer Death to make Satisfaction and Atonement
for Diobedience to himelf, or to nullify and detroy the Obligation of all his own
Laws.291

Philip Skelton, in his critique of Deism, summaries a common view when he says:
Chritianity, rightly undertood, promises forgivenes of ins, and eternal life,
only to a true repentance; and thoe men do but deceive themelves, who are led,
by their own interpretations of Scripture, to depend on foreign or imputed
meritChrit is called our Saviour, becaue he et us an example, which if we
follow, and gave us a law, or rule of action, which if we oberve, we hall ave
ourelves.292

Joseph Priestley wrote that the great object of the mission and death of Christ,
was to give the fullest proof of a state of retribution, in order to supply the
strongest motives to virtue; and the making an express regard to the doctrine of a
resurrection to eternal life, the principle sanction of the laws of virtue, is an
advantage peculiar to Christianity. By this particular advantage the gospel reforms
the world, and remission of sins is consequent on reformation.293

One can see in this tension, therefore, what will become at least one need for a Galilean crisis: a

necessary shift or transition in theological orientation from Jesus preaching ethics to Jesus

289
Thomas Morgan, The Moral Philosopher: in a Dialogue between Philalethes a
Christian Deist, and Theophanes a Christian Jew (London: s.n., 1737), 324.
290
Morgan, Moral Philosopher, 325.
291
Morgan, Moral Philosopher, 159. Morgan believed that Paul did not support the idea
of atonement, though he used language drawn from the Old Testament sacrificial system to
accommodate his readers. See Baird, From Deism to Tbingen, 54.
292
Philip Skelton, Deism Revealed, or, The Attack on Christianity Candidly Reviewed (2
vols.; 2nd ed.; London: A. Millar, 1751 [orig. 1749]), 1:258.
293
Cited in George Payne, Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, Election, the Atonement,
Justification, and Regeneration (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1836), 162-64. See here
also Matthew Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation: or, The Gospel, a Republication of the
Religion of Nature (London: s.n., 1730), 79.

105
preaching the saving effects of his death. For if one takes the general sentiment of the above

lines, combined with the assumption that Jesus was a rational teacher, it is impossible to

advocate both at the same time. These writers were themselves more interested in promoting the

ethical dimension of Jesus mission than working out a historical reconstruction of Christian

origins.294 But their theological and philosophical reflections helped precipitate the later

reconstructionsespecially those that rely on shifts, breaks, or transitions in theological

orientationby reifying two distinct soteriological trajectories.295 We will revisit this in the

next chapter when discussing Reimarus.

Three further observations can be drawn at this point. First, one can anticipate the dire

consequences of rejection if Jesus major aim was to teach and inspire. For should one read the

story of Jesus in light of the metanarrative of creation, fall, and redemption, some rejection of

Jesus teaching along the way is not that critical.296 However, if one largely dispensed with that

metanarrative, as did many of the freethinkers and certainly the Deists, and rather supposed that

the plight to which Jesus addressed was general moral ineptitude, carnal political or nationalistic

294
If there were attempts they more often than not resembled the cut and paste method
of Thomas Jefferson, who, interestingly enough, intentionally excluded many of the texts that
bespeak eschatology and atonement. Cf. e.g. Jefferson Bible, 342-43. We will revisit this.
295
There are important connections here with the larger construction of religion in the
West, as other scholars have detailed. Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015), has traced the way that the understanding of the
term religion shifted over time: what once described the cultivation of internal virtues became
in the Enlightenment a descriptor for a propositional system of belief. Charles M. Taylor, A
Secular Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), similarly described what he called the
intellectualization and excarantion of Christianity into a system of belief. It is fitting, then,
that in this period we find critics treating the teaching of Jesus as a propositional system which is
self contained, definable, and suitable for comparison with other systems.
296
On this theological context for reading see Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson,
Introduction and Overview, in Hauser and Watson, Medieval Through the Reformation
Periods, 1-84 at 6.

106
hopes, and an inability to understand the truth and practice virtue, then Jesus success was, in

some sense, dependent on the favorable response of the people. Thinkers within this paradigm

could, of course, still find Jesus successful, as did Anglican priest John Heylyn who thought that

John the Baptist and Jesus began preaching repentance because it was a necessary first-step to

enter the kingdom: near as it (the kingdom) is, it cannot be come at, till Repentance, which is

the Entrance into the Legal State, has opened the Way to it.297 It is good news, then, to Heylyns

mind, that when Jesus sent out the twelve he did not instruct them to call for repentance, for this

meant Thoe to whom they were now ent, had repented, and had brought for them the proper

Fruits of Repentance.298 But in this framework the outcome could also be the exact opposite, as

Thomas Morgan concluded: great Numbers of this Nation, at firt, adhered to Jeus, as their

Meiah or national Deliverer, tho he could not prevail with them to bring forth any Fruits of

Repentance, as a neceary Qualification for uch a Deliverance.299 In this context, the theory of

a Galilean crisis is near to hand.

Second, this focus on Jesus ethical teaching carries with it wider implications concerning

the nature of his audience. Since many of these thinkers in question despised all things

Calvinistic (esp. here predestination and total depravity), as well as any hint of theological

intolerance and/or intellectual coercion (which were patently thought unethical),300 we frequently

297
John Heylyn, Theological Lectures at Westminster-Abbey: With an Interpretation of
the Four Gospels (London: s.n., 1749), 45.
298
Heylyn, Theological Lectures, 176 (my italics).
299
Morgan, Moral Philosopher, 325 (my italics).
300
Spurred by the religious wars following the Reformation. Cf. Orr, English Deism, 23-
25; Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (2 vols.; 3rd ed.; New
York: Peter Smith, 1949), 1:75-76; Rosenblatt, The Christian Enlightenment, in Brown and
Tackett, Enlightenment, Reawakening and Revolution, 285.

107
find the notion that Jesus set out to persuade his audience by appealing to common reason.301

This is important because Jesus ministry takes on a different dimension when one thusly

respects the agency of his audience. Indeed, the possibility of rejection becomes inherent, for the

audience has free will.302 Jesus appears as an advocate for a truth that people may or may not

choose to accept, and he must respond to their reactions.303 The results are open ended.

Lastly, the prioritization of free will and ethical teaching leads to a slightly different

evaluation of the judgment material in the Gospels. This means, on the one hand, that critics

downplay the announcement of judgment.304 To be sure, many thought judgment required by the

proposition of a just God, despite wide-ranging attacks on the traditional doctrine of hell.305 But,

in any case, judgment was not the focus of Jesus teaching: it rather conformed to, and

supplemented, his ethical demand. On the other hand, with the jettisoning of predestination (or at

least that Jesus was privy to knowing who was in and who was out), it made little sense to

301
Mortimer, Reason and Religion, 2, identifies a further aspect of Socinus influence:
religion must be freely chosen if it were to be at all praiseworthy. Here see Hobbes, English
Works, 3:490: (Jesus) was sent to persuade the Jews to return to, and invite the Gentiles to
receive, the kingdom of his Father. On freethinking see Lucci, Scripture and Deism, 137-48.
302
Cf. Lord Herbert, Ancient Religion of the Gentiles, 259 (on free will); Chubb, True
Gospel of Jesus Christ, 16-17 (we hall find that he [Jesus] applies himelf to men as free beings
who have the direction of their own actions, and as uch he lays before them and recommends to
their mot erious conideration his teaching [italics orig.]). Cf. Jackson, An Examination, 129;
Brown, Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 46; Reventlow, Authority of the Bible, 187, 299;
Duane Olson, Issues in Contemporary Christian Thought (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 6-
7.
303
Hence, e.g., Conyers Middleton, Reflections on the Variations found in the Four
Evangelists, in The Miscellaneous Works of the Late Reverend and Learned Conyers Middleton
(2nd ed.; 5 vols.; London: R. Manby and H. S. Cox, 1755 [orig. 1752]), 2:352-53: Jesus began
saying that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, and that he fulfilled the law and the
prophets, only after his Jewish audience had showed their hesitancy to join his new religion.
304
Cf. Martin, Last Judgment, 97-99.
305
Cf. D. P. Walker, The Decline of Hell; Seventeenth-Century Discussions of Eternal
Torment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).

108
think that Jesus announced judgment on people because they were chosen by God to be so

damned. On the contrary, Jesus judgment, like Gods, must be duly deserved, for divine

judgment is a response to human action.306 English cleric John Hales, though himself not a Deist,

speaks their language when commenting on the Pharisees plans to kill Jesus in Matt 12:14:

Hitherto, as yet, this zeal and endeavours of the Phariees to maintain the traditions of
their elders, and the religion of their fathers, might eem omewhat excuable; and
therefore Chrit, adding miracle to miracle, did wait for their repentance and amendment;
in the mean time preventing them by ecapes, and concealing of himelf, from doing him
any violence or michief, till uch time as that, reiting the light and tetimony of their
own concience (as ome of them did very hortly after, as we hall ee anon) they had
more deervedly drawn upon themelves the guilt of that innocent blood.307

The assumption is that for Jesus judgment to be just, it must be justly timed. Jonathan

Edwardss Jesus may begin his ministry by announcing the damnation of particular people, for

such is the nature of Gods sovereign choice. But for others it must logically come later, simply

by virtue of their system.308

All these discussions regarding the atonement, nature of Jesus audience, and preaching

of judgment are robustly theological or philosophical in nature. But they have historical

implications that would be influential on later generations of scholars. As New Testament studies

today still grapples with the form critical questions and assumptions from Dibelius generation,

306
Though the expectation of future judgment is thought beneficial for correcting
behavior in the present. Lord Herbert, Ancient Religion of the Gentiles, 4, included the following
as the fifth principle of common religion: That Divine Goodne doth dipene Rewards and
Punihments both in this Life, and after it (italics orig.). See Reventlow, Authority of the Bible,
385. Thomas Chubb, True Gospel of Jesus Christ, 112: God does not approve or diapprove
from capricious humour or arbitrary pleaure; but from the real and intrinic valuablenes or
unworthines of the object of uch his approbation or dilike.
307
John Hales, A Paraphrase on the Twelfth Chapter of St. Matthews Gospel (vol. 1 of
The Works of the Ever Memorable Mr. John Hales of Eaton; London: J. Balfour; Glasgow:
Robert and Andrew Foulis, 1765 [orig. 1677?]), 12.
308
The view is not unique to the Deists, to be sure. Reventlow, Authority of the Bible,
289: even its (Deism) orthodox opponents shared a series of its fundamental presuppositions.

109
so too the intellectual culture of the Deists very much shaped early questers for Jesusincluding

Reimarus and Hase, to name a fewas will be shown in the following chapters.

3.4. PERIODIZATION AND BOOK CULTURE

I wish to make one final observation on the backdrop to the 19th-century crisis theory concerning

an issue that is of great importance but has escaped detection by New Testament scholars. It is

this: we find more frequently in the 16th century and beyond a tendency to break up the ministry

of Jesus into periods, parts, or sections. The practice is not entirely new. As mentioned in

the last chapter, Ludolph the Carthusians Vita Christi had two major sections that divided,

significantly enough, at Peters confession.309 So too, Gersons Monotessaron broke the ministry

of Jesus into three parts: before the baptism, from the baptism until Passover, and the final

week.310 But the practice becomes widespread and much more intentional.

The point for later Jesus study is obvious. Just as early questers had precedent to call a

work a Life of Jesus, so too there was a well established tradition of dividing the ministry into

periods. Thus, the notion of an early period of success and a later period of rejection

punctuated by a Galilean crisisis merely an adaptation of the practice.

But a question arises at this point: what is the rationale of such periodizations that may

help explain their influence on later Jesus study? I suggest two things: one conscious and

interpretive, the other possibly unconscious and related to the physical form of the book in this

period.

309
See above pp 44-45.
310
Cf. Wnsch, Evangelienharmonien im Reformationszeitalter, 18.

110
 In terms of the first, it appears that periodization has to do with interpretive strategies that

relate to the content of the Gospels. The reasona rather ironic one, in factis that the notion of

periodizing comes straight from Gospel harmonies and paraphrases. That is, precisely from the

works that later historians will claim worthless for reconstructing the Jesus of history.

Periodization must, of course, assume something of a chronology of the ministry that can be

further divided into constituent parts. Thus periodization, for the harmonist, is one outcome of

completed labor. In some cases, periodization functions as a compromise between a desire to

harmonize and a recognition that it is impossible to know for certain the exact order of the

chronology.311 Here, then, even if the precise order cannot be known, one can still identify the

general period in which these particular events happened.312 This practice is still widespread,

and will be discussed in Chapter 5.

Periodization also relates to some of the interpretive strategies of the harmony tradition

noted above. One is the attempt to identify a plot, or overarching logic, to the ministry. For some

critics, to break up the ministry into smaller sections made evident the rationale of Jesus career

and thus served the larger purpose of aiding the proper interpretation of the Gospels.313 In fact, it

is common to find critics complain that the division of the Gospels into chapters and versesa

relatively recent phenomenonatomized and obscured the Gospels (and other parts of the

311
Cf. e.g. Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, 3:38, 61.
312
Cf. Ebrard, The Gospel History, 52-53.
313
See Daniel Hobbins, Authorship and Publicity before Print: Jean Gerson and the
Transformation of Late Medieval Learning (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2009), 170-72 (on Gersons Monotessaron). Such subdividing was common in this period,
especially of Bibles. See Jean-Franois Gilmont, Protestant Reformations and Reading, in A
History of Reading in the West (eds. Guglielmo Cavallo and Roger Chartier; trans. Lydia G.
Cochrane; Amherst; Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 213-37 at 228.

111
Bible).314 Hence Edward Wells wrote in his preface about the need to divide the harmony into

Sections and Paragraphs, very different from the common Diviion, into Chapters, and he thus

identified the everal Parts of our Saviours Life.315 It also became popular to have each year

of Jesus ministry, or at least the time between significant festivals, constitute a section or

part of the whole, which allowed the reader to identify patterns of activity.316

Another interpretive advantage to periodization regards the identification of development

or progress throughout the ministry. Some harmonists broke up the ministry not according to

precise temporal markers but rather thematic or situational ones. Pilkington claimed there were

two Parts of the Minitry of Chrit; one, more private, carried on at the ame Time with that of

John the Baptit; and the other more publick, after John was cat into Prion; when Jeus returned

in the Power of the Spirit into Galilee.317 In Bengels Gnomon, he identified two parts (in

duas partes) of the ministry: the first emphasizing Jesus identity as the Messiah, the second

focusing on his suffering and death.318 In his Harmonie (1737), Bengel identified smaller

divisions (Abtheilungen) within these larger breakdowns of the ministry, and he called the

314
Such as John Locke on Pauls epistles in An Essay for the Understanding of St Pauls
Epistles by Consulting St. Paul Himself, in John Locke: Writings on Religion (ed. Victor
Nuovo; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), 51-66 at 54: the letters are so chopd and mincd that
readers lose very much of the strength and force of the Coherence.
315
Wells, Understanding of the Holy Scriptures, 1, 3 (italics orig.).
316
E.g. already Jansens Commentarii in suam Concordiam has four parts, at least in the
1589 edition (I did not have access to the 1549 original): to the second Passover; to the third
Passover; to the raising of Lazarus; to the Passion and Resurrection. Note also that Robert Wait
divided his Gospel-History into books, each corresponding roughly with a year of ministry. On
page layout and textual division as attempts to express intention, orient reception, and constrain
interpretation, see Roger Chartier, The Order of Books: Readers, Authors and Libraries in
Europe Between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries (trans. Lydia G. Cochrane; Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1994), 28.
317
Pilkington, Evangelical History and Harmony, lv (italics orig.).
318
Bengel, Gnomon, 111 (on Matt 16:21).

112
third division (which is the beginning of Jesus ministry in Galilee), the Gnadiges Jahr des

HERRN.319 This description, which we have by now traced back to Epiphanius and found

throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, will be picked up by Karl August Hase in his construction

of two periods in the ministry.320

There were, to be sure, incredibly diverse conclusions regarding such periodization.

Crells Monotessaron (1566) had five parts, as did the harmonies of Samuel Nelson, John

Fleetwood, and Samuel Lieberkhn. Protais Henriets Harmonia evangelica (1660) had seven,

with many further subdivisions. William Whiston, who was critical of the chronology of chpts.

4-14 in Matthew, thought this material alone could be grouped into fifteen Branches or Periods,

tho of very different ize and quantity.321 And one could go on. The main thing to see here,

however, is not consensus in details, but ubiquitous attempts. For by the time we get to Reimarus

and the Quest of the historical Jesus, periodization was already a well established practice.

In addition to this interpretive and synthetic logic for the increase of periodization, there

is another, I submit, that has to do not with the content on the page but rather the medium or

form through which readers encountered itthat is, the layout of the book and the inclusion of a

table of contents.

319
John Bengel, Richtige Harmonie der vier Evangelisten: da die Geschichten, Werke
und Reden Jesu Christi unsers Herrn, in ihrer geziemenden naturlichen Ordnung (3rd ed.;
Tubingen: Christoph Heinrich Berger, 1766 [orig. 1737]), 5.
320
Hase, it should be noted, was well acquainted with earlier harmonies, including
Bengels, which he viewed positively. See Das Leben Jesu: ein Lehrbuch (Leipzig: Johann
Friedrich Leich, 1829), 17. He does not mention Bengel as an influence on his periodization,
however.
321
Whiston, Harmony of the Four Evangelists, 103.

113
 Even before the Reformation period one finds tables of contents and other reading aids.322

These reference devices served scholastic ends by making books easier to consultfor already

by the end of the Middle Ages, university culture had produced reader-researchers who sought

quick access to subsections of texts.323 The advent of the printing press in Europe in the 15th

century hastened these developments and brought in a few new ones, including the title page.324

The printing press also made it easier to standardize pagination, which opened up new

possibilities for indexing and reference and the modern table of contents became possible.325 In

addition to such scholastic advantages, these developments had a commercial purpose:

printers/publishers worked for a profit, so they wanted recognition for their work (e.g. title page)

and needed to communicate quickly the general contents of a volume to potential buyers. In all,

by the mid-16th century, the printed book had essentially the same form it has today.326

322
Indexes, running titles, and tables of contents appear in the 13th century and became
more and more common up to the advent of print in the 15th century. See Malcolm B. Parkes,
The Influence of the Concepts of Ordination and Compilation on the Development of the
Book, in Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to Richard William Hunt (ed. J.
J. G. Alexander and M. T. Gibson; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 115-41 at 123; Mary A.
Rouse and Richard H. Rouse, Backgrounds to Print, in Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to
Medieval Texts and Their Manuscripts (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991),
449-68 at 453; Hobbins, Authorship and Publicity, 8.
323
Cf. George R. Keiser, Serving the Needs of Readers: Textual Division in Some Late-
Medieval English Texts, in New Science Out of Old Books: Studies in Manuscripts and Early
Printed Books in Honour of A. I. Doyle (ed. Richard Beadle and A. J. Piper; Aldershot: Scolar,
1995), 205-26 at 212; Jean-Franois Gilmont, John Calvin and the Printed Book (trans. Karin
Maag; Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2005), x.
324
Cf. S. H. Steinberg, Five Hundred Years of Printing (rev. ed.; Bristol: Pelican Books,
1961), 28; Lucien Febvre and Henri-Jean Martin, The Coming of the Book: The Impact of
Printing 1450-1800 (ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith and David Wootton; trans. David Gerard;
London: NLB, 1976), 77-78.
325
Henri-Jean Martin, The History and Power of Writing (trans. Lydia G. Cochrane;
Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 303.
326
Martin, History and Power of Writing, 308. Cf. Andrew Pettegree, The Book in the
Renaissance (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2010), 36.
114
 Here is the upshot: if someone in the late 16th century wanted to write a harmony of the

Gospels, or a paraphrase of the Life of Jesus, then they had to fit the increasingly standardized

form of the book.327 And for many this meant including a table of contents and other textual

divisions.328 Thus, whether the material in the harmony or paraphrase required it or not, authors

started drawing lines to create chapters and sections. As evident above, it is clear that many did

not regard this dividing process a totally arbitrary one. At least in conception and appearance, the

table of contents merely reflects the content, and one could find rational reasons to divide here or

there. But the reality may be slightly the reverse, especially for later thinkers: the form actually

shapes the content to some degree. People start thinking about the life of Jesus in the same kind

of outline-able and divisible way that a table of contents would suggest about the material that

follows.329

Another point of evidence is a parallel to our case: the 13th and 14th-century spread of

silent and private reading coincided with the introduction of subdivisions to earlier classical and

medieval texts.330 Paul Saenger rightly notes that such modes of presentation, including chapter

327
Cf. Febvre and Martin, The Coming of the Book, 80; Mary A. Rouse and Richard H.
Rouse, Ordinatio and Compilatio Revisited, in Ad litteram: Authoritative Texts and Their
Medieval Readers (eds. Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery, Jr.; Notre Dame; London: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 113-34 at 124-28 (on influences on authors).
328
Hobbins, Authorship and Publicity, 169, claims that by the 15th century such aids had
penetrated the fabric of book production and had become a common expectation and practice.
329
Elizabeth Eisenstein traced similar influences on other disciplines in The Printing
Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern
Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). Though she may overstress the
influence of print, she rightly notes that Increasing familiarity with regularly numbered pages,
punctuation marks, section breaks, running heads, indices, and so forth, helped to reorder the
thought of all readers, whatever their profession or craft (105-06, italics orig.).
330
See Martin, History and Power of Writing, 316-17 (humanists imposed their
numbering system and their rigid references on the great texts and Publishers of ancient texts
gradually began to present works in numbered capitula even when the scheme somewhat
115
headings, tables, and subject lists, presupposed someone who read only with his eyes.331 So too

here: the dividing of someones life into periods or sections is a very literary-minded thing to do.

The notion that one can outline a life and literally see the breaks and divisions in that life

presupposes a tight correspondence between the biography of Jesus and the visual appearance of

(some) late medieval manuscripts and especially printed books.332 The point is significant for the

crisis theory because such outlines not only reinforce the seeming linearity of narrative

biographyand thus an apparent spatial distinction between earlier and later in that

narrativethey also visually encourage sharp transitions from one period or section or chapter to

another.

One final point. It is worth recalling that we know print allowed and encouraged great

efforts in the 16th century to systematize ancient law codes, geography, scientific advancements,

and much else.333 Our study, then, would be a case study of a much larger trend. It is also

encouraging that New Testament scholars have elsewhere supposed that print culture impacted

the study of Jesus and the Gospels in rather drastic ways. For example, it is common to hear the

critique that the 20th-century form critics thought about history within the confines of the printed

fragmented the authors thought). Cf. Parkes, Ordination and Compilation, 124-26; Rouse
and Rouse, The Development of Research Tools in the Thirteenth Century, Authentic
Witnesses, 221-58 at 244-46.
331
Paul Saenger, Reading in the Later Middle Ages, in Cavallo and Chartier, A History
of Reading in the West, 120-48 at 134.
332
It may be noteworthy in this regard that, by the 14th and 15th centuries, many authors
used rubrics and other spatial devices to compose drafts of their works. See Richard Beadle,
English Autograph Writings of the Later Middle Ages: Some Preliminaries, in Gli autografi
medievali: problemi paleografici e filologici (eds. Paolo Chiesa, Lucia Pinelli, and Fondazione
E. Franceschini; Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull'alto Medioevo, 1994), 249-68 at 261-62.
333
On law and history in particular, Julian Franklin, Jean Bodin and the Sixteenth-
century Revolution in the Methodology of Law and History (New York; London: Columbia
University Press, 1963).

116
medium through which they encountered (e.g. read) it.334 That is, Dibelius and the rest

supposed the development of the Gospel tradition akin to a series of literary editions which

progressed, in linear fashion, from simple to complex and from short to long. It is natural to think

that readers made similar assumptions during the explosion of book production in the late Middle

Ages and especially at the introduction of print in the 15th and 16th centuries.335 In this case it is

lived history, rather than tradition history, that is thought to resemble the orderly and systematic

format of tables of contents.336

It should be stressed, in closing, that the objective of drawing attention to these material

and formal influences is not to dismiss the whole attempt to periodize. The form critics were not

entirely wrong, despite their unchecked assumptions. Moreover, and as mentioned above, there

was periodization before the 14th and 15th centuries.337 The point, instead, is to show that there

were material as well as intellectual influences on this practice, and the interplay between form

and content should not be overlooked here.

334
Cf. e.g. Werner Kelber, The Oral and Written Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1983), 1-43; James D. G. Dunn, Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early
Transmission of the Jesus Tradition, in The Oral Gospel Tradition (Grand Rapids; Cambridge:
Eerdmans, 2013), 41-79.
335
McArthur, Quest through the Centuries, 88-93, has argued that the format of parallel
columns, aided by the development of the printing press, facilitated the boom of harmony
production in the 16th century.
On the impact of print on writing orderly world history, see Eisenstein, Printing
336

Press, 102-03, 186-87, 200.

One should also not forget the concern for spatial arrangement in Origens Hexapla
337

and also Eusebius Chronicle. Cf. Anthony Grafton and Megan Hale Williams, Christianity and
the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library at Caesarea (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2006), 103-05, 137-43, 195-200.

117
 3.5. CONCLUSION

Our review of the three centuries of writing about Jesus and the Gospels before Reimarus reveals

that many of the interpretive moves that will contribute to the construction of a Galilean crisis

are already in use. Not only that, we find key developments in theological mindset and historical

praxis that make possible the conclusions of the 18th and 19th centuries. A summary of our

important conclusions:

(i) Christian readers began to reflect more deeply on Jesus mental state and the
motivations for his actions. Such emphasis on Jesus human nature opened the door for
later psychologization;

(ii) many harmonies of the Gospels, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, had
underlying biographical interests and sought to provide an orderly historical account of
Jesus ministry;
(iii) many harmonies intentionally or unintentionally devised certain criteria to aid the
process of re-organizing the Gospels in a rational manner, such as identifying the implied
backstory of particular pericopae, and employing a kind of historical common sense;
(iv) some readers popularized the idea that Jesus had early success in the ministry and/or
growing opposition throughout it;
(v) freethinkers and Deists helped to solidify theological tensions between ethics and
atonement that will be significant for later scholars;
(vi) freethinkers and Deists also emphasized that Jesus sought to persuade an audience
that could, by its own volition, accept or reject his instruction, and they advanced the idea
that, for Gods judgment to be just, it had to be a response to human action;
(vii) harmonies and paraphrases started the process of breaking Jesus life into periods;
(viii) the form of the book, in particular the introduction of subdivisions and a table of
contents, inefluenced the way that people thought about Jesus career.
These points contribute to the prehistory of the Quest of the historical Jesus in general because,

as mentioned in the Introduction, the notion of a Galilean crisis intersects a number of key issues

that all Jesus scholars must address: the nature of the Gospels, the chronology of the ministry, the

character of Jesus and his aims, the degree coherence and consistency in his message, the origin

118
of opposition to him, the impact of rejection. Thus, this chapter itself fills an important lacuna in

New Testament scholarship.

With this prehistory in mind, we turn now to address research typically considered within

the modern Quest of the historical Jesus. We will look first at the advent of the crisis theory

proper in the 19th century (Chapter 4), and then what happens to the idea in the 20th and 21st

(Chapter 5).

119
 CHAPTER 4.0:

THE GALILEAN CRISIS AND THE 19TH-CENTURY QUEST

Amidst all the precursors to the theory of a Galilean crisis identified in Part I, it remains true that

we have yet to encounter the proposal itself. Something changes in the late 18th through the 19th

centuries. In the hands of new critics, many of the assumptions, approaches, and interpretive

moves detailed in Chapters 2 and 3 will aid the construction of the life of Jesus into different

periods of varying success, often punctuated by a great moment (or moments) of

disappointment. This particular reconfiguration of the Gospel tradition becomes more or less a

blueprint of the many Lives of Jesus published from the 1860s to the early 20th century.

The first objective of this chapter is to investigate (in the first three sections) the

appearance and development of the crisis idea in the 19th century. The discussion will begin by

reassessing the significance of Herman Samuel Reimarus for the crisis theory and for later Jesus

research in general. It will further identify the interpretive and historical backdrop of the many

19th-century works that featured some form of a Galilean crisis. And it will conclude with the

eschatological school of Weiss and Schweitzer, suggesting that, contrary to common opinion,

their work did not move far from the periodizations of earlier Lives.

The second objective is to begin, for the first time in this study, a more evaluative

discussion of the problems and prospects of the crisis theory as it appeared in the 19th century.

The hope is that, having examined reading habits, hermeneutical assumptions, and interpretive

120
moves here and in the last two chapters, we can start to assess the value of a Galilean crisis as a

historical hypothesis. This form of inquiry will continue in Chapter 5.

4.1. REIMARUS AND STRATIFICATION

We have by this point multiple reasons to disagree with Albert Schweitzers assessment that

Reimarus marks the beginning of the Quest.338 But Reimarus was indeed significant for

establishing the context of Karl Hases 1829 Leben Jesu and many early forms of the crisis

theory.

If one were to consider just the general contours of Reimarus reconstruction of Jesus as a

political revolutionary, its significance for our purposes would not be immediately evident. To be

sure, there is no Galilean crisis here. There is no major development in Jesus self consciousness.

There is no notion of two stages in the ministry. In fact, the contrary is true: Reimarus was clear

that the proclamation of an earthly, messianic kingdom constituted the total intention of Jesus

and all his teachings and deeds.339 One could also note that the negative reaction to Reimarus

was quick, steep, and ultimately successful. The Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek340 published

numerous critical responses to the book, and Johann Semler, one of the foremost Neologians,

offered a 452 page rebuttal.341

On the role of Reimarus in Schweitzers German narrative in the Quest of the

338

Historical Jesus, see Simon J. Gathercole, The Critical and Dogmatic Agenda of Albert
Schweitzers The Quest of the Historical Jesus, TynBul 51 (2000): 261-83 at 264.
339
Hermann Samuel Reimarus, Reimarus: Fragments (ed. Charles H. Talbert; trans.
Ralph S. Fraser; repr.; Chico: Scholars Press, 1985 [orig. 1779]), 126.
340
The ADB (1765- 1806) was a significant outlet for the German Enlightenment.
For discussion see George Wesley Buchanan, Introduction, in The Goal of Jesus
341

and His Disciples (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 1-34 at 15-24; Brown, Jesus in European Protestant
Thought, 11-16; Baird, From Deism to Tbingen, 174-77.

121
 But the reconstruction is significant for our purposes, and for three reasons. First, despite

the fact that Reimarus was well acquainted with the English Deists, and that many of his claims

were not original but rather echoed and intensified their points,342 he nevertheless offered a much

more comprehensive historical account of Christian origins than those before him. As mentioned

in Chapter 3, the Deists were mostly content with isolated studies of miracles, eschatology,

ethics, and so on. But Reimarus tried to put the pieces together in a historical framework.343 The

aftereffect was this: later critics could not respond to Reimarus, or write critically about the

historical Jesus, without addressing his ministry as a whole.344 One could say that Reimarus

impact on subsequent scholarship was not due to the originality of his ideas, but rather to the

robustly historical manner in which he attempted to demonstrate them.

Second, and more importantly, surveys of the Quest have generally failed to recognize

that, despite the general rejection of Reimarus portrait, many of his insights continued to be

342
Between 1745 and 1782, over twenty works by English Deists appeared in German.
They were influential on Reimarus and Lessing. See Reventlow, Das Arsenal, Hermann
Samuel Reimarus, 44-65; A. O. Doyson, Theological Legacies of the Enlightenment: England
and Germany, in England and Germany: Studies in Theological Diplomacy (ed. S. W. Sykes;
Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1982), 45-62 at 55. See also McArthur, Quest through the Centuries,
104-05; Buchanan, Introduction, in Buchanan, Goal of Jesus and His Disciples, 5-6; Henk J.
De Jonge, The Loss of Faith in the Historicity of the Gospels: Hermann S. Reimarus on John
and the Synoptics, in John and the Synoptics (ed. Adelbert Denaux; Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1992), 409-21; Gathercole, Critical and Dogmatic Agenda, 268; Birch, The Road to
Reimarus, 29-46.
343
So rightly Luigi Salvatorelli, From Locke to Reitzenstein: The Historical
Investigation of the Origins of Christianity, HTR 22 (1929): 263-369 at 274: (Reimarus) broke
away from the anti-historical method of the deists. See also Werner Georg Kmmel, The New
Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (trans. S. McLean Gilmour and
Howard C. Kee; Nashville; New York: Abingdon, 1972), 90; Kissinger, Lives of Jesus, 14;
Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London; New York: T & T
Clark, 2012), 8.
Cf. Buchanan, Introduction, 20-21 (later critics tried to deal with the topic [of
344

Reimarus] by writing lives of Jesus).

122
influential. The most significant of these, I submit, has to do not with any one argument or motif,

but rather something more fundamental to the structure of his historical reconstruction. In

particular, Reimarus diagnosed and attempted to resolve tensions345 in the Gospels by a

stratification technique. Earlier readers, as we have seen, sometimes pointed to Jesus changing

pedagogy and the developing receptivity of his audience to explain seeming differences in

theological perspective or in the temperaments of characters (as did Origen and John

Chrysostom).346 But Reimarus would resolve a perceived tension by positing two different

historical contexts for the contrary traditions. That is to say, Reimarus would periodize the

gospel material in one of two stages: the life of Jesus, on the one hand, the life of the early

church, on the other. The Deists had already paved the way here by often crediting the disciples

of Jesus or other later followers with certain doctrines that, either by accident or contrivance,

made their way back into the Gospels.347 But it was again Reimarus historically focused

arguments on these matters that made such a significant impact on his contemporaries and

subsequent study.

345
See here Marius Reiser, Jesus Research from the Enlightenment until Today, in
Gospel Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and Biblical Scholarship (eds. Christos
Karakolis, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, and Sviatoslav Rogalsky; WUNT 288; Tbingen: Mohr,
2012), 93-114 at 97: The main literary criteria (for Reimarus) for the discernment of the true
and the false are contradictions and incongruities in the sources, whether alleged or real (italics
orig.).
346
See pp 59-67 above.
347
Esp. noteworthy here is their common take on the notion of the Second Coming. For
many, this was one of several vulgar errors typical of the disciples after Jesus death, so
Collins, Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons, 33. For a collection of views, see Tucker S.
Ferda, The Enlightenment, Deism, and the Painful Prick of the Second Advent Expectation
(paper presened at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta GA, 21 Nov.
2015), 3-12.

123
 The form of Reimarus stratification is particularly significant for the crisis theory, for he

modeled for others a structure of historical argumentation: the posing of different periods of

activity for incongruous perspectives in the text. In fact, the parallel between Reimarus

stratification procedure and the later crisis theory includes content as well as form. For instance,

Reimarus reconstruction presumed to find a tension regarding Jesus teaching about the

kingdom of God in the Gospels. The correlative of the idea that Jesus kingdom was entirely

political and this-worldly was the relegating of spiritual or otherworldly traditions (as he saw

them) to the post-Easter period.348 Reimarus did largely the same thing with messianism. He

thought that a spiritual Messiah who saves humankind from their sins is nowhere among the

messianic hopes of Jesus contemporaries,349 and it stands at odds with Jesus ethical teachings

and devotion to the Jewish Law.350 Thus, he ascribed this material to the church, and hence made

a historical argument for the theological contrast between ethics and atonement that many of the

Deists had written about (as discussed in Chapter 3). Concerning both points, then, it was

Reimarus knowledge of a conceptual tension that allowed him to identify the remnants of

348
Key texts and arguments for Reimarus political kingdom included: (i) Mark 1:14-
15, and 6:7-13, where Jesus never explained what he meant by the kingdom of God, so he
must have assumed the political expectations of his contemporaries (See Fragments, 65-66, 126-
28, 136-38, 141); (ii) Matt 19:28 (the twelve on thrones); Luke 22:29 (I bestow to you a
kingdom); Matt 8:11 (eating in the kingdom); Mark 10:30 (receive a hundredfold in this age).
Cf. Fragments, 145. See already Peter Annet, The Resurrection of Jesus Considered; In answer
to the Tryal of the Witnesses (London: the author, 1744), 13-16.
349
On this distinction see Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation, 207, who termed
the Messiah in Judaism a Temporal Prince, whereas Christians proclaimed a Spiritual One.
350
Reimarus, Fragments, 101, 128-31, 136, etc. Cf. Kmmel, Problems, 89; Baird, From
Deism to Tbingen, 171. On Jesus upholding the Jewish law, see Fragments, 69-71, 100 (only by
the proper practice of the Law could one participate in the kingdom), 101 (Jesus in no way
intended to abolish this Jewish religion and introduce a new one in its place), 123 (Jesus and his
disciples were all full-fledged Jews). The influence of the Deists here is patent.

124
their previous doctrine that had been left in the Gospel tradition by accident.351 Not only is

Reimarus approach here nearly identical to those historians who would later reconstruct a crisis

in the ministrywhere material from earlier and later periods had been inaccurately

reorganized by the Evangelistsbut these particular tensions over the kingdom and messianism

would reappear in later debate.

Reimarus third significant legacy is closely related. Having periodized tensions in the

tradition, he also tried to explain, historically, how such changes in theological orientation came

about. And for him, significantly enough, the failure of Jesus initial political hopes was the

hinge. The spiritual or non-political material arose from the disappointment of the worldly

aspirations for the kingdom in Jerusalem. In his words:

after Jesus death the apostles changed their previous doctrine of his teaching and
deeds and only then for the first time ceased hoping in him as a temporal and powerful
redeemer of the people of Israel.352

Further, and even more clearly:

Now, however, that their (the disciples) hope is disappointed, in a few days they alter
their entire doctrine and make of Jesus a suffering savior for all mankind(W)e can
think only that their first doctrine had been based on an intended temporal redemption of
Israel and that they invented another doctrine concerning his intention, namely, of his
becoming a suffering spiritual savior of men, only when their hopes had been
disappointed after his death353

In terms of the structure and logic of a historical argument, Reimarus proposal is what later

critics would call a Galilean crisis. Some details differ in terms of the location (in Jerusalem),

351
Reimarus, Fragments, 130. See here Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The
Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Ksemann
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 61.
352
Reimarus, Fragments, 129.
353
Reimarus, Fragments, 134.

125
time (at the very end of his career), and agency (the disciples).354 But there is substantial

agreement here between Reimarus argument and the form and function of a

Galilean crisis for a larger historical reconstruction. In both, the crisis of failure and

disappointment serves as a transition or bridge between material otherwise thought

incongruous.355 Given Reimarus influence on later Jesus research, and how he shaped future

debate with the very questions he posed of the texts (while his answers were less compelling), it

will be no coincidence that his line of demarcation between Jesus and the church clearly parallels

the division between the first and second periods of the ministry of Jesus himself in many later

Lives. In this sense, it can be said that Reimarus overall scheme may have been torn down by

critique, but later researchers would continue to build on the same structure.

In light of our interests, then, the three significant legacies of Reimarus are these: his

historicizing method called forth more comprehensive treatments of the life of Jesus; he sought

out theological and thematic tensions in the Gospels and separated them into different historical

contexts; and he employed failure or disappointment as a transitioning mechanism between

perceived tensions in the tradition. Via each one Reimarus shaped later discussion, as we will

now see.

354
Although the similarities are still striking: (i) a rift between the intentions of Jesus and
the actual outcome of his ministry presupposes disappointment somewhere along the line
(Reimarus thought Jesus went up to Jerusalem with hopes the people would accept him and
retain them as their expected messiah [Fragments, 145]); (ii) the attitude of the crowds toward
Jesus could evidence a turning point (ibid., 148); (iii) some sayings of Jesus point to frustration
and disillusionment (ibid., 148-150 [the cry of dereliction]).
Reimarus, Fragments, 151 (italics mine): the new system of a suffering spiritual
355

savior, which no one had ever known or thought of before, was invented after the death of Jesus,
and invented only because the first hopes had failed.

126
 4.2. HASE IN PROPER HISTORICAL CONTEXT

In the interval between Reimarus and Hases Leben Jesu, we find the crisis theory take shape in a

number of forms. It emerges as critics respond to the Fragments controversy and the issues

discussed above, as well as continue to develop those interpretive moves and reading patterns

identified in Part I, such as assuming backstories behind pericopae, psychologizing Jesus,

reorganizing the Gospels on the basis of common sense, and so on. This interval shows that

Hases periodization is quite understandable and perhaps even expected given the nature of the

debate in his day. Four facets of the discussion before Hase are necessary to recover here.

(i) Reimarus radical periodization led to great debate about the consistency of the

teaching of Jesus in the Gospel tradition. And one common way to respond to Reimarus was to

argue that the Gospels do not present contrary perspectives on the kingdom of God or

messianism. So too, materials that appeared too Jewish or contrary to later Christian teaching

were actually examples of Jesus accommodating to his hearers.356 Major intellectuals of the

late 18th and early 19th centuries made this case in different ways. Semler tried to outflank

Reimarus by incorporating more of the Gospel material into his portrait of Jesus than Reimarus

did, arguing that the Sermon on the Mount demonstrates that his kingdom was in fact ethical and

not political.357 Johann Herder (1744-1803) similarly read the teachings of Jesus through the lens

356
See Charles H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 17: Diversity within Scripture was dealt with by separating
out temporally conditioned ideas (Zeitideen) which represent an accommodation to the thought
of people in biblical times; what is left is the essence of biblical teaching, i.e., the timeless,
rational truths of religion and morality. Calvin was important for popularizing the idea of divine
accommodation. Cf. Arnold Huijgen, Divine Accommodation in John Calvins Theology:
Analysis and Assessment (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011).
357
Johann Semler, Beantwortung der Fragmente eines Ungenannten, insbesondere vom
Zweck Jesu und seiner Jnger (Halle: s.n., 1779), 30. Cf. Chester Charlton McCown, The Search
for the Real Jesus: A Century of Historical Study (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1940),
29-31; Jean G. H. Hoffmann, Les vies de Jsus et le Jsus de l'histoire; tude de la valeur
127
of the Sermon on the Mount. He called it the Magna Carta of this new reign of God which

went above and beyond the earthly and temporal fixations of Judaism.358 Herder also argued that

Jesus himself was consistent in his ministry: his isolation in the desert and temptation allowed

him to think over the plan of his call (um seinen Beruf zu berdenken) and choose the plan of

his life (den Plan seines Lebens zu erwhlen).359 Later, Reinhard, Gieseler, and von Ammon

would all argue in various ways that Jesus assumed the language of Judaism to invest it with

higher, spiritual significance.360 The means of his ministry were, consistently, the gentile

influence of convincing instruction.361

historique des vies de Jsus de langue franaise, non catholiques, d'Ernest Renan Charles
Guignebert (Paris: Prostant apud Messageries vangliques distributeur, 1947), 2.
358
Johann Herder, Vom Erlser der Menschen nach unsern 3 ersten Evangelien (Riga:
Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1796), 92. He claimed concerning the Sermon on the Mount that if
we had merely this collection of ethical sayings from the mouth of Christ, then it would be
enough to let us have no doubt about what he called the kingdom of God (87). On the
contrast between Jesus teachings and Judaism see Marcia Bunge, The Restless Reader: Johann
Gottfried Herders Interpretations of the New Testament (PhD diss., University of Chicago,
1986), 168.
359
Herder, Vom Erlser der Menschen, 71, 72.
360
See e.g. F. V. Reinhard, Plan of the Founder of Christianity (trans. Oliver A. Taylor
th
from 5 German ed.; New York: G. & H. Carvill, 1831 [orig. 1781]), 9, 12 (after acquiring
influence and authority he declared in still plainer language, that the old order of things was
soon to be destroyed), 29 (Jesus began with reference to the expectations they entertained
[italics orig.]); Johann Karl Ludwig Gieseler, Text-Book of Ecclesiastical History (trans. Francis
Cunningham from 3rd German ed.; 3 vols; Philadelphia: Carey, Lea, and Blanchard, 1836 [orig.
1824-35]), 1:41 (Jesus began, indeed, only with the same summons to repentance with which
John had appeared, but soon unfolded a far more comprehensive system, which, although
addressed directly to the Jews, was in its nature intended for all mankind); Christoph Friedrich
von Ammon, Die Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion: eine Ansicht der hheren
Dogmatik (Leipzig: Vogel, 1833), 211 (Diesen politisch-mystischen Schleier nahm Jesu
allmhlig).
361
Reinhard, Plan of the Founder, 8. Also: Jesus chose the gentlest means possible to
achieve his plan (112); Instructionwas the principal means of which he intended to avail
himself in the accomplishment of his object (113); Jesus always appeared entirely free from
every wild and furious passion (226).

128
 These arguments are relevant to the issue of a Galilean crisis because they reflect a wider

debate around this time, spurred by Reimarus, about the consistency of Jesus teaching and how

the narrative shape of the Gospels informs ones understanding of his ministry. These

(selectively) canonical and narrative-critical observations in many ways repeat what Origen and

Chrysostom argued centuries earlier, but here aim at a new target. At core, they challenge

Reimarus periodization by seeking theological continuity in the texts. They show that the non-

political material is not contrary to other aspects of the tradition, but rather could come from

Jesus himself and reflect his own pedagogical strategy.

(ii) Others who rejected the entirety of Reimarus reconstruction still agreed that the

Gospels contain varied perspectives on the kingdom of God and the nature of messianism. This

was partly due to the boom of studies on New Testament background in Second Temple

Judaism,362 since many concluded that any kingdom language in this context would certainly

be understood theocratically. That is, the prophets and others had hoped for a terrestrial

kingdom in which God would be king over all the earth (e.g. Zech 14:9) with his rule established

in Jerusalem (e.g. Isa 2:2-4).363 Moreover, many conceded that some of Jesus sayings and deeds

(many of which Reimarus himself had highlighted, as noted above) shared the same theocratic

hope.364 Unlike Reimarus, however, these critics did not, by and large, surgically remove the

apolitical material to the post-Easter period. They supposed, instead, there to be some

362
Cf. e.g. Carl Keil, Historia dogmatis de regno Messiae Christi (Leipzig: s.n., 1781);
Gottlob Storr, De notione regni coelestis in N.T. (Tbingen: Drucker, 1782); Carl Flatt, De
notione vocis (Tbingen: Drucker, 1794).
363
Some of these descriptions resemble what modern scholars have called restoration
eschatology. Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77-122.
364
Cf. J. C. Baum, Versuch ber das Nationalreich Christi (trans. F. G. C. Rtz;
Gttingen: Boiegel, 1783) 206-07, see also 318-19, 349, 352.

129
development or change of approach during Jesus own ministry as he responded to new

circumstances.

Especially significant for this view is the work of W. M. L. de Wette, a scholar who is

unfortunately ignored by most NT critics given his more notable contributions to OT studies. In

his 1813 Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmatik, de Wette argued that Jesus teachings about the

kingdom in the Gospels were very fluctuating and ambiguous (viel Schwankendes und

Zweydeutiges),365 and he partly attributed the fact to interpolations from the early church (as did

Reimarus). But he also argued that Jesus teaching changed. Jesus began as a spiritual and moral

teacher who clarified his messianic agenda (Zweck) in the Sermon on the Mount and

dismissed all worldly hopes.366 But because Jesus was unable to compel his contemporaries to

share his new vision for the kingdom, he was forced to change strategies and momentarily take

up the material messianic hopes of his followers.367 The decision ultimately led to his death, a

martyrs death, for de Wette thought that there was no expectation that the Messiah would

expiate the sins of the people.368 According to de Wette, then, the apparent tension in the

kingdom tradition could be resolved by positing a Semler-like Jesus at first, and then a

Reimarus-like Jesus (though as a guise) at the end. In all, he effectively responded to the debate
365
W. M. L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der christliche Dogmatik in ihrer historischen
Entwicklung dargestellt (Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung, 1813), 206.
366
de Wette, Lehrbuch der christliche Dogmatik, 198. Cf. Baird, From Deism to
Tbingen, 228.
367
Cf. Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of
the Holy Scriptures (7th ed.; Philadelphia: Desilver, Thomas & Co., 1835 [orig. 1818]), 326.
368
See W. M. L. de Wette, Commentatio de morte Jesu Christi expiatoria (Berlin: [s.n.],
1813), 8. See also idem, Lehrbuch der christliche Dogmatik, 212. Cf. John W. Rogerson, W.M.L.
de Wette: Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism. An Intellectual Biography (JSOTSS 126;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 95, 120; Thomas Albert Howard, Religion and the Rise of
Historicism: W. M. L. de Wette, Jacob Burckhardt, and the Theological Origins of Nineteenth-
Century Historical Consciousness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 88-89.

130
of his day by saying that both Reimarus and his critics were right in part, and that the insights of

each could be maintained if one rightly periodized the ministry of Jesus. His proposal was

rhetorically forceful in this context because he preserved much of the tradition as historical,

whereas Reimarus was thought cavalier in this respect.

(iii) Something else that appears with increasing frequency after Reimarus is the claim

(or assumption) that the aim of the teaching of Jesus was the repentance and ethical restoration of

his hearers. This notion has theological underpinnings in the work of the Deists and earlier

thinkers, as explored in Chapter 3.3 (including the notion that Jesus program was not one of

coercion).369 Reimarus furthered it by linking Jesus ethics to his theocratic goals. But the view

becomes popular not just among those who agreed with Reimarus on the kingdom. The idea here

is that Jesus ethical teachings were not instructions on how to live once justified by the grace of

the cross. Rather, the teachings, and more importantly the peoples adherence to them, were the

means by which Jesus was to redeem the people. Significant for this position was the common

belief that the OT prophets had called Israel to restore themselves by internal, ethical renewal,

rather than by trust in ceremonial (sacrificial) observance (again we see an ethics/atonement

contrast).370 Jesus was thought a prophet-teacher in this line of tradition.371

369
Cf. Reinhard, Plan of the Founder, 113 (Jesus honored the freedom of the human
mind).
370
Here see Heinrich E. G. Paulus, Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen
Geschichte des Urchristentums (2 vols.; Heidelberg: C. F. Winter, 1828), 1:40. Cf. Ronald E.
Clements, One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1976), 52-53; Robert R. Wilson, The Prophetic Books, in The Cambridge Companion to
Biblical Interpretation (ed. John Barton; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 212-25
at 215-17; Julia M. OBrien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphor: Theology and Ideology in the
Prophets (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 12-15.
See de Wette, Lehrbuch der christliche Dogmatik, 199 (Es ist der geistig
371

wiedergeborne Prophetismus, der ihn beseelt). Cf. August Neander, The Life of Jesus Christ in
131
 The corollary of the point is this: the cross becomes (both historically and theologically)

either inconsequential to the larger aims of Jesus ministry, or a plan b after the failure of his

initial hope that the people respect his teaching. And many, in fact, drew both conclusions. Of

those critics we have already mentioned, Gieseler wrote that the founding of the kingdom of God

required first change of heart, that they might be fitted to receive the spirit of God; and then

faith in him as the Christ, that by trusting to the guidance of a higher spirit, they might be

elevated to unrestrained communion with the Divinity.372 De Wette similarly thought that the

task of the Messiah was probably thought of as a reconciliation through a real improvement and

purification of the people.373 Von Ammon, taking the same logic a step further, wrote this:

To judge according to some very determined expressions, an act of self sacrifice for his
religion did not lay in the original plans of Jesus (in dem ursprnglichen Plane Jesu). He
wanted to bring about an encouraging religious education, founded on the mosaic
Law(though weakening the sacrificial cult)and through these means to make his
nation happy, without making a change in their political constitution. But this design
failed (Dieser Entwurf scheiterte aber), partly because of the superstitions and the
indolence of his people, partly because of their prevailing political messianic beliefs, and,
finally, partly and admittedly more significantly, because of the stiff orthodoxy of the
Pharisees and Scribes, who worked violently against his work.374

its Historical Connexion and Historical Development (trans. John McClintock and Charles E.
Blumenthal from 4th German ed.; New York; Harper & Brothers, 1855 [orig. 1837]), 81-82.
372
Gieseler, Text-Book of Ecclesiastical History, 1:42 (italics orig.). Cf. Herder, Vom
Erlser der Menschen, 34, 37, 53 (on John the Baptist).
373
de Wette, Lehrbuch der christliche Dogmatik, 182 (wahrscheinlich dachte man sich
eine Vershnung durch wirkliche Besserung und Luterung des Volkes); cf. also 243-44.
374
Christoph Friedrich von Ammon, Biblische Theologie (2nd ed.; 3 vols.; Erlangen:
Johann Jakob Palm, 1801 [orig. 1801]), 2:378-79.

132
Jesus, in other words, had hoped for one thing, but because the people failed to heed him and the

leaders opposed him, he found himself on a cross instead.375 It is easy to see how this view of

Jesus ethical teaching could divide the ministry into two periods.

There is one further point to make at this juncture, as it concerns the approach to the

study of Jesus at play here. These critics were trying to understand the career of Jesus by

correlating the overarching aim(s) of his ministry with the means he took to achieve those ends.

Since the Deists, many just took for granted that the outcome of Jesus career (in the form of

early Christian theology) was not his initial intention. Hence, essential to the recovery of the

historical Jesus was the authentication of tradition, and the reconstruction of his ministry, around

whatever in the Gospels appeared agreeable to Jesus actual aims. The approach (which later

critics will call the criterion of coherence) is significant because it naturally gathered Gospel

traditions into different clusters according to the aim, or telos, that they seemed to presuppose. In

turn, these different blocks of tradition could be placed into the pre- or post-Easter periods, or

into different periods in the life of Jesus.

(iv) The interval between Reimarus and Hase also witnessed an increasing number of

critics who furthered the common conception of Jesus ministry (as we have seen) in terms of

early success and growing opposition.376 In fact, by Hases time the idea was so engrained that it

could be assumed without much argument. It is not clear that the dissemination of this motif

relates to the impact of Reimarus. But it is clear that the notion of early success/growing

For von Ammon, the cross was an attempt by Jesus not to destroy, but to refine
375

messianism (den Messianismuswo nicht vernichten, doch veredeln). See Biblische Theologie,
2:379.
376
William Burkitt, Expository Notes, with Practical Observations upon the New
Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (New Haven: Abel Morse, 1794), 20: How
affecting our Saviours minitry was at firt Such is, to him, commonsensical: early on our
peoples affections are then warmet, and our own zeal perhaps is then greatet.

133
opposition was not created again and again ex nihilo; it was rather a hermeneutical convention

that new scholars inherited from earlier ones. The prior two chapters have amply shown that the

idea appeared as early as Epiphanius and reemerged with increasing frequency in harmonies and

paraphrases of the Gospels after the Reformation.

One factor that contributed to the popularization of the schema was renewed wrestling

with the episodic nature of the Gospels. As harmony writing began to fall out of style in the late

18th century,377 critics became increasingly skeptical about the reliability of the chronologies of

the Gospels. This skepticism, however, did not lead researchers to despair regarding knowledge

about the course of Jesus life. They rather relied more heavily on their own abilities as

historians (a confidence we will discuss later), and two other well-established interpretive

approaches to the Gospels we have seen already: using generalizations to identify

commonsensical patterns of activity, and inferring backstories for individual pericopae. The

sentiment of Reinhard was common: (the Evangelists) never give a connected delineation of his

plan. Their accounts of the various events of his life are made up of single fragments, the

importance and connexion of which, evidently they did not perceive. To form a clear and correct

conception of the views of this original personage, we must combine them together and give the

whole a laborious examination.378

377
For claims about problems with Gospel harmonies, see Johann Herder, Smmtliche
Werke (ed. Bernhard Suphan, Carl Redlich, and Reinhold Steig; 33 vols.; Berlin: Weidmannsche
Buchhandlung, 1877-1913), 10:159; William Gilpin, An Exposition of the New Testament (2
vols.; 4th ed.; London: Cadel and Davies, 1811 [orig. 1790]), xxxvii-iii; Hermann Olshausen,
Commentary on the Gospels: Adapted Expressly for Preachers and Students (trans. H. B. Creak;
4 vols.; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark; New York: J. Wiley, 1854 [orig. 1830]), 1:18. Cf. Jrg
Frey, Herder und die Evangelien, in Johann Gottfried Herder: Aspekte seines Lebenswerkes
(eds. Martin Keler and Volker Leppin; Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 92; Berlin; New York:
de Gruyter, 2005), 47-92 at 64-65.
378
Reinhard, Plan of the Founder, 7 (italics orig.).

134
 Two influential studies of Jesus represent the prevalence of this early success/growing

opposition motif. The first is Johann Jakob Hess Lebensgeschichte Jesu, which appeared in

1781. Hesss work may be a paraphrasing history,379 but he clearly reorganized pericopae

according to this early success/growing opposition schema. He offered the observation that the

Evangelists do not determine the degrees according to which his public reputation had grown,

nor the point of time when it increased to the highest point, nor also how it gradually was

undermined and last of all was overthrown. But they still list some clues of this increase and

decrease.380 The details of his portrait confirm the generalization.381 But he provided no further

argument for it. He assumed the transitions; he failed to explain the transpositions. The notion of

early success/growing opposition is something Hess learned from other works and used to guide

his own conclusions.

A similar presumption underlies the conspiratorial Life of Jesus by Karl Venturini in

1802.382 The fantastical plotline of this work, which Schweitzer and subsequent scholarship has

enjoyed ridiculing, involved the Essenes using Jesus as their tool to cleanse their Jewish

379
See here Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 29.
380
Johann Jakob Hess, Lebensgeschichte Jesu (8th ed.; 3 vols; Zrich: Drell, Fuli and
Co., 1822 [orig. 1781]), 1:410 (betimmen zwar nicht die Grade, nach welchen ein ffentliches
Anehen gewachen, noch den Zeitpunkt, wann es am hchten getiegen, noch auch, wie es nach
und nach untergraben und zulet getrzt worden; ie fhren aber doch auf einige Spuren dieer
Zu- und Abnahme).
381
E.g. Hess, Lebensgeschichte Jesu, 1:553 (Jesus sent out his disciples because his
popularity was so gro); 2:199-239 (the situation worsens, and Jesus concludes his Galilean
ministry with the woes). For Hess, the major obstacle to Jesus success was Jewish patriotism
(235).
382
Karl Heinrich Venturini, Naturliche Geschichte des grossen Propheten von Nazareth
nd
(2 ed.; 4 vols.; Copenhagen: Schubothe, 1806 [orig. 1800-02]).

135
contemporaries from political messianism.383 En route Venturini exemplified many of the points

noted above, including the view that Jesus first hope was not to end up on a cross but to have

the people hearken to his vision for the kingdom. But between the first aim and the rejection,

Venturini claimed that Jesus had early success on account of his healings and his debates with

Jewish leaders,384 even repeating the customary line that In the first year of his public ministry

he still found little opposition (Im erten Jahre eines ffentlichen Lebens fand er noch wenig

Widertand).385 He posited that Jesus successes nourished the hope that he would in fact lead his

nation to the lofty goal, which spread a happy and cheerful mood over his entire being

(verbreitete eine frohe und heitere Stimmung ber ein ganzes Ween).386 And he further asserted

that soon after the second Passover, Jesus hope sank terribly (chrecklich inken) and his

entire disposition changed with it.387

As with Hess, Venturini provided few arguments in support of his views on these points

(or others for that matter). That is partly due to the melding of historical, biographical, and

fictional genres in his Life of Jesus. But it is also due to the fact that he relies on convention here.

Venturini borrowed the early success/growing opposition motif from other writers. On account

of his influence (in the sense that he was much read), these biographical features would reappear

383
Karl Friedrich Bahrdt, Ausfhrung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. In Briefen an Wahrheit
suchende Leser (11 vols.; Berlin: August Mylius, 1784-1792) has a similar plotline. See
Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 38-47.
384
Venturini, Geschichte des grossen Propheten, 2:125.
385
Venturini, Geschichte des grossen Propheten, 2:209.
386
Venturini, Geschichte des grossen Propheten, 2:233-34.
387
Venturini, Geschichte des grossen Propheten, 2:234. Cf. Herder, Vom Erlser der
Menschen, 108-09; de Wette, Lehrbuch der christliche Dogmatik, 204 (But he [Jesus] painfully
saw himself disappointed in his hope [Aber er sah sich schmerzlich in seiner Erwartung
getuscht]).

136
in subsequent study, especially the notion that rejection left its imprint on Jesus sorrowful

attitude.388

It is in this state of affairs, then, that Karl Hase wrote his Leben Jesu in 1829. His

reconstruction is best understood as an attempt to navigate these historical and interpretive issues

and to respond to the debates of his day.

Given our work thus far, to summarize his proposal is to show its indebtedness to prior

discussion.389 In brief: Hase proposed that at the beginning of Jesus ministry, he had hoped to be

recognized as the Messiah and found the theocratic kingdom of God on earth. To accomplish

this he knew that it was necessary first to effect an ethical-religious rebirth of his people. But

in the course of his ministry Jesus experienced rejection, which he interpreted as a divine

rejection of any limitation of his ministry to Israel alone. So, in the later stages of his life, he

aimed to found a spiritual kingdom open to all. Hase divided the public ministry of Jesus into

two periods accordingly. Later editions called the first the acceptable year of the Lord (Das

angenehme Jahr des Herrn) and the second the year of conflict (Das Jahr des Kampfes).

Hases starting points, interpretive assumptions, and extensive points of contact with

fellow critics made this reconstruction, in his view, necessary to suppose. Hase in large part

agreed with those before him who argued that the Jewish expectation for the kingdom in Jesus

time was theocratic in nature, and that the accompanying messianic hope was inherently this-

Schweitzer said of Venturini in Quest of the Historical Jesus, 47: all the fictitious
388

Lives go back directly or indirectly to the type which he created. It is plagiarized more freely
than any other Life of Jesus, although practically unknown. Cf. Gerald OCollins, On
Reissuing Venturini, Gregorianum 75 (1994): 241-65.
389
Karl Hase, Das Leben Jesu: ein Lehrbuch zunchst fr akademische Vorlesungen
(Leipzig: Johann Friedrich Leich, 1829), esp. 85-88.

137
worldly and political.390 Thus, for Jesus to proclaim a kingdom, and to accept acclamation as the

Messiah, must mean, as Reimarus had argued, that he confirmed those hopes in some sense.

Hase even recalled many of the same texts and arguments that Reimarus did to prove the

point.391 Hase also identified a tension in Jesus kingdom teaching and general outlook. He

relegated the apolitical hope to a later period in the ministry after disappointment, and claimed

that Jesus became less cheerful than at the commencement of his mission.392 In sum, Hase

essentially squeezed Reimarus pre- and post-Easter periods together into one biographya

middle ground between the apologetical accommodation theory of the Neologians and the

tendentious views of Reimarus.393

Another pillar of Hases logic is the assumption, much explored by this point, that Jesus

ethical teaching conflicts with the theology of the cross. Thus, for Jesus to be internally

consistentwhich was a necessary and unquestioned item for mosthe could not have taught

both at the same time. Hase also thought that Jesus (as John the Baptist before him) stood in line

with OT expectation in calling for Israels national redemption by means of reine

Gottesverehrung.394 It was only the failure of the people to heed his call that led to the

390
Hase, Leben Jesu, 46 (on the Jewish hope als Theokratie).
391
Cf. Hase, Leben Jesu, 85-87.
392
Hase, Leben Jesu, 61: In opposition to later sadness, this year seems full of cheerful
hope that through an ethical rebirth of the nation the messianic reign would come also with the
expressed blessings (Im Gegensatze der sptern Wehmuth erscheint dieses Jahr voll der heitern
Hoffnung, dass durch eine sittliche Wiedergeburt der Nation das messianische Reich auch mit
ussern Segnungen kommen werde).
393
Gnther Fu, Die Auffassung des Lebens Jesu bei dem Jenaer Kirchenhistoriker Karl
von Hase (PhD diss., University of Jena, 1955), 25-26 argues rightly that Hase took a
Mittelstellung between other theological debates of his day as well.
394
Hase, Leben Jesu, 47. See also 71 (Jesus teaching contained die Aufforderung zur
sittlichen Erneuerung), 85.

138
disappointment of this initial hope, and hence the need for Jesus to make theological sense of his

impending death.395

Hase also wanted to provide a purely scientific and scholarly presentation of the life of

Jesus396 with Gospel sources that, in his estimation, sometimes mix up the order of events.397

Although he did not entirely dispose of the Gospel chronologies,398 his solution to this problem

was to divide the public ministry into periods and stratify the sayings and deeds accordingly. 399

He considered this periodization scientific because, to his mind, it was data driven and

therefore objective. He claimed that the life of Jesus divides itself into periods.400 The

approach betrays Hases romantic and rationalistic Zeitgeist.401 But many of his conclusions we

have seen before. (a) He thought Jesus left Galilee disappointed by lack of success, which

395
Hase, Leben Jesu, 111-13.
396
Hase, Leben Jesu, i. Critics have too readily adopted Hases own claim that his
scientific presentation was unique in his time.
397
Hase, Leben Jesu, 3-5.
398
Cf. Brown, Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 167-68. On his use of John 2:13,
6:4, and 13:1 as structuring devices, see Fu, Die Auffassung des Lebens Jesu, 39. However,
Hase spent more time reflecting explicitly on the Johannine question in his second edition.
399
Hase, Leben Jesu, 16.
400
Hase, Leben Jesu, 16. Hase claimed at one point that his periodization was something
required on the basis of a total perspective on the life of Jesus. The pieces did not fit together
any other way. Cf. Kmmel, Problems, 95, quotes Hase here: Only if it could be demonstrated
that a perfectly clear and self-contained concept of his whole being is possible without assuming
this relationship and is appropriate to a historical development of his life, would I not only be
refuted in this respect but also converted.
401
Also crucial here is the predilection for system in the 18th and 19th centuries:
everything has its place and rationally coheres with the whole. See Rolf-Peter Horstmann, The
Unity of Reason and the Diversity of Life: The Idea of a System in Kant and in Nineteenth-
Century Philosophy, in The Cambridge History of Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century (1790-
1870) (eds. Allen W. Wood and Songsuk Susan Hahn; trans. Allen W. Wood; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2012), 61-94. Cf. Brown, Jesus in European Protestant Thought,
169 (Hases appeal was to an intrinsic rational cogency which he found in the Gospel stories as
a whole). Cf. Fu, Die Auffassung des Lebens Jesu, 45-50.

139
occasioned his infamous woe over Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida.402 (b) He identified a

similar sense of disappointment in Luke 19:41-44 (how long I have desired to gather you, but

you did not desire it!), and (c) he figured that Jesus sayings about judgment presuppose a more

solemn and melancholic attitude than the joyous flair of his earlier teaching.403 (d) Moreover,

given the form and content of Hases layout, it is no coincidence that he considered Gospel

harmonies the first step toward a history of Jesus,404 and had particularly fond things to say of

Bengels work.405 And finally, (e) Hases scientific presentation of the life of Jesus maintained

the orderly appearance of select chapters and larger sections of chapters (by now common),

which, I would submit, is related to the impact of book layout on New Testament study as

discussed in Chapter 3.

In later editions Hase would revise some of the basic tenants of his theory in response to

criticism.406 It is nonetheless true that we have here the clearest articulation to date of a Jesus

402
Hase, Leben Jesu, 86.
403
Hase, Leben Jesu, 86, 61.
404
Hase, Leben Jesu, 19 (als das erste Element einer Geschichte Jesu). Cf. Fu,
Auffassung des Lebens Jesu, 26 (Der Grundgedanke der Harmonie ist umfassend genug fr
das Ganze und zugleich prgend fr das Einzelne seiner Darstellungen).
405
Hase, Leben Jesu, 19.
406
Criticism of Hases first edition, especially by Lcke (1831) and Ullmann (1833),
caused him to revise his periodization theory. See discussion in Fu, Auffassung des Lebens
Jesu, 29-30 (Die Annahme eines zweifachen Planes Jesu wird von Hase nunmehr fallen
gelassen). Changes in the third edition (1840) were mostly devoted to issues raised by Strauss,
and editions four (1854) and five (1865) fine tuned the third edition and addressed newly
published literature (including Strausss New Life in 1864, as well as Keim and Weizscker). In
any case, the crisis idea was not completely expunged, cf. Karl Hase, Life of Jesus: A Manual for
Academic Study (trans. James Freeman Clarke from 4th German ed.; Boston: Walker, Wise, and
Company, 1860), 182-83 (on departing from Galilee): Jesus left Galilee without any hope of
returning thither. He saw himself forsaken by his countrymen and threatened by Herod, who
feared to find in a friend of the Baptist an avenger of his deathHis last word concerning a
country on which he had before pronounced the highest blessing was not a curse, but a word of
pain and of dark foreboding.
140
who began with certain aims that he then revised, with disappointment, in response to rejection.

It is evident that the novelty of this reconstruction has little to do with Hases unique

rationalism, or a sudden penchant to psychologize Jesus.407 It is misleading to say he created

the notion of two periods in the ministry. Hases portrait was a solution to much discussed

interpretive and historical problems in the study of Jesus. His real contribution, we can

conclude, was synthetic not analytic.

4.3. THE CRISIS THEORY IN LATER LIVES OF JESUS

After Hase, the three major shapers of 19th-century Jesus studySchleiermacher, Strauss, and

Baurhad little to say about any crisis in the ministry. Schleiermacher thought it impossible to

achieve a connected presentation of the life of Jesus given the nature of the sources, and while

he believed opposition grew throughout the ministry, he concluded that Jesus was consistent in

his aims and message.408 Strauss reasoned that the periodization theory of Hase was not

407
We must disagree, then, with Kmmels assessment of Hase in Problems, 94: With
this hypothesishe (Hase) ventured for the first time the conjecture that has since reappeared in
the most varied forms: Namely, that a change took place in Jesus way of thinking, and in this
way he showed that Jesus as a historical person must be subjected as any other to psychological
and genetic analysis. Contra also J. M. Robertson, A History of Free Thought in the Nineteenth
Century (2 vols.; London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1969), 1:133; Anderson, Critical Quests of
Jesus, 18 (Hase the first); Kissinger, Lives of Jesus, 19. All are just rephrasing Schweitzer,
Quest of the Historical Jesus, 58-62. Cf. Hoffmann, Les vies de Jsus, 6.
408
Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Life of Jesus (ed. Jack C. Verheyden; trans. Maclean
Gilmour; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975 [orig. 1864]), 43, 362 (opposition gradually
increased), 390 (despite opposition, Jesus continued in his ordinary way of life). On
Schleiermachers view of historical development, see Craig M. Watts, The Intention of
Schleiermacher in The Life of Jesus, Encounter 46 (1985): 71-86 at 78-79. Schleiermachers
Life is a composite work, drafted from the notes of five students on lectures that he delivered in
1832.

141
inconceivable, yet he remained characteristically skeptical.409 Baur was more interested in the

role of the Gospels themselves (rather than the historical Jesus) in the development of early

Christian theology.410

But the writing of Lives of Jesus by no means ceased, and many would adopt the notion

of a Galilean crisis with even more vigor. These biographies shared much with Hase including

the periodization, the notion of early success/growing opposition, the contrast between ethics and

atonement, among other things. But there were important differences too. As debate had shifted

over time, the pressing theological tensions that helped spur Hases periodization had evolved.

With Reimarus and the Fragments controversy now in the distant past, issues besides the

theocratic nature of the kingdom would take the foreground. Moreover, some would pose a

409
Strauss thought that the researcher is almost destitute of knowledge about Jesus
intellectual development, and he figured it was impossible to arrange the Gospel stories (so
frequently at variance with each other) into a reliable chronology. See David Friedrich Strauss,
The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (trans. George Eliot; 4th ed.; London: Swan Sonnenschein
& Co., 1902 [orig. 1835-36]), 203, 279. Strausss later work softens a bit to the idea, however.
Cf. A New Life of Jesus (trans. s.n.; 2 vols.; London; Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1865),
1:319. Here Strauss claims it is possible that Jesus at first desired to be a teaching messiah, but
the more among his own people he met with want of sympathy and with resistance, the more he
saw the hatred of the upper ranks excited against him, the more occasion he had to adopt into the
conception for the Messiah he had formed the peculiar characteristics in (Isaiah 50, 52, 53). He
also offered this reflection: (Jesus must have) considered it possible gradually to advance the
Jewish people so far by means of moral and religious teaching that they would extricate
themselves more and more from the system of external ceremonies, purifications, and perhaps
also sacrifices, withdraw (also from the religious leaders), and entrust themselves to the guidance
of men whose minds had been educated in the spirit of genuine inward piety (1:384-85).
410
For Baurs most explicit reflections on the historical Jesus see The Church History of
the First Three Centuries (trans. Allan Menzies; 2 vols.; 3rd ed.; London; Edinburgh: Williams
and Norgate, 1878 [orig. 1853]), 1:22-43. Baur proposed that Jesus was fundamentally a teacher,
and that his message, encapsulated in the Sermon on the Mount, was consistent throughout his
career. He did think, however, that Jesus grew in the knowledge of his messiahship, and that
before his execution it was a possibility that he and the people might come to agree on the
ground of the Messianic faith: the people might acknowledge him to be the person to whose
advent the national expectations pointed (1:41). But this is a minor feature of his portrait.

142
Galilean crisis not because historical inquiry required that conclusion, but simply because the

view was popular and appeared in many other biographies. Borrowing was extensive.

Two important factors contributed to the heightened interest in writing Lives of Jesus

from 1860 on, as well as to the prevalence of some Galilean crisis in many of them. The first is

Renans Vie de Jsus (1863), which generated further interest in moments of change and growth

in Jesus psychological development.411 Renan generalized that during the first period of his

career, it does not appear that Jesus met with any serious opposition,412 and that Jesus had much

success in his tranquil Galilean environment. He further claimed that, in light of opposition from

the religious leaders, Jesus became more ascetic, began to preach judgment, and expected an

imminent world catastrophe. In the later stages of his ministry, then, Jesus was no longer the

mild teacher who delivered the Sermon on the Mount, but was rather more inflammatory and

gloomy, pronouncing woes over the cities that rejected him.413 As clear as the connections are

with prior work, however, it is important to note that Renans interest in such matters differed

widely from that of Hase. Hase sought internal theological consistency, while Renan wanted to

understand Jesus psyche and character.414 Moreover, Renans Vie is a rather different genre than

the work of Hase and others before him, as it blends historical insights with the form of a

411
On Renans impact, see tienne Trocm, Exgse scientifique et idologie: de l'cole
de Tubingue aux historiens francais des origines chrtiennes, NTS 24 (1978): 447-62; Pals,
Victorian Lives, 32-39; Kissinger, Lives of Jesus, 24-25; Brown, Jesus in European Protestant
Thought, 237-38; Baird, From Deism to Tbingen, 376, 382-84.
412
Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus (trans. n.m.; New York: Modern Library, 1927 [orig.
1863]), 295.
413
Renan, Life of Jesus, 297. Cf. Hoffmann, Les vies de Jsus, 34-35, 49.
414
See Hoffmann, Les vies de Jsus, 42; Kissinger, Lives of Jesus, 25.

143
fictional novel. The upshot, for Renan, was a penchant for the dramatic. The notion that the main

character progressed via struggles and disappointments made for a more interesting plotline.415

In addition to Renans Vie, we also cannot understand this period of the Quest apart from

Heinrich Holtzmanns source criticism and his Life of Jesus that grew out of it. For earlier

historians, source criticism was not a major component of Jesus research. Hence Hases Leben

hardly dealt with source critical questions or reflected on their significance for periodizing the

ministry. Even Strausss work, the most detailed and compelling of his time, gave such matters

little attention.416 But Holtzmann thought that his recovery of the earliest Gospela lost A

source (commonly known as Urmarkus)provided a more reliable starting point for tracing

development in the ministry of Jesus.417 Surveys of Jesus research have misrepresented the

opinion of Holtzmann and many of his contemporaries on the reliability of the synoptic

chronology. The truth is that few, in fact, adopted the Markan or Matthean frameworks in toto.418

415
On the important issue of genre in the Lives from this period, see Jennifer Stevens,
The Historical Jesus and the Literary Imagination, 1860-1920 (Liverpool: Liverpool University
Press, 2010), esp. 24-29, 42 (Renan manipulated the conventions of contemporary genres such
as travel writing, the historical novel and realist fiction).
416
Cf. Salvatorelli, From Locke to Reitzenstein, 290; Brown, Jesus in European
Protestant Thought, 187.
417
Cf. Shirley Jackson Case, The Life of Jesus During the Last Quarter-Century, JR 5
(1925): 561-75 at 568; idem, Jesus Through the Centuries, 307. It is noteworthy that
Holtzmanns predecessor, Christian Herrmann Weisse, also sought to discover the earliest source
that could be used as a reliable basis for the life of Jesus, and he also thought Mark best
approximated it. Cf. Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (2 vols.;
Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hrtel, 1838). While he did not think the whole of the Markan framework
was historical, its outline was: a gradual increase of success, a growing confidence on the part of
the disciples, and an increased tension with religious leaders. For a brief history of the issues, see
David R. Law, The Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed (London; New York:
T & T Clark, 2012), 120-23.
418
Already Herder on the synoptic chronology, see Smmtliche Werke (eds. Bernhard
Suphan, Carl Redlich, and Reinhold Steig; 33 vols.; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung,
1877-1913), 19:222-24. Cf. e.g. Carl Weizscker, Untersuchungen ber die evangelische
144
But still Holtzmanns work contributed to the popularity of the crisis theory because his earliest

and most reliable source divided the ministry into two sections: the first devoted to the preaching

of the kingdom, the second to the predictions of suffering and death.419 Here was further

evidence that the ministry of Jesus had two periods of activity.420

In the 1860s and beyond, then, numerous German Lives of Jesus appeared that paid

greater attention to source critical issues, showed interest in Jesus psychological development,

and contained some form of a Galilean crisis. A brief look at three significant works provides a

good sample of the unity and diversity on these issues.

(i) Carl Weizscker published his Untersuchungen ber die evangelische Geschichte in

1864. Though influenced by Baur and the Tbingen School, Weizscker agreed more with

Holtzmann that the Synoptics follow a primitive narrative Gospel, Urmarkus, that best

approximates canonical Mark. He also thought that the Synoptics used an early sayings

collection (Papias logia), and that the Gospel of John, written by a disciple of John the son of

Zebedee, could provide reliable information about Jesus. Weizscker used primarily these

sources to claim that Jesus ministry underwent eine kritische Wendung around the time of

Geschichte: ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung (2nd ed.; Tbingen: Mohr, 1901 [orig.
1864]), 439, 442 (the Gospels have no cohesive narrative and the thread [continually]
breaks); Daniel Schenkel, A Sketch of the Character of Jesus: A Biblical Essay (trans. n.m. from
3rd German ed.; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1869 [orig. 1864]), 19; Willibald
Beyschlag, Das Leben Jesu (2 vols; 3rd ed; Halle: Eugen Strien, 1893 [orig. 1885]), 1:256-57
(reconstructing the course of events is an ungemein gro und mannigfalt task).
419
We recall here the same division in Ludolphs Vita.
420
For Holtzmanns own reconstruction of Jesus, see John Kloppenborg, Holtzmanns
Life of Jesus According to the A Source: Part 2, JSHJ 4 (2006): 203-23. Holtzmann actually
broke the development of Jesus into seven stages, but he thought the Caesarea Philippi episode
especially significant. Cf. Salvatorelli, From Locke to Reitzenstein, 303.

145
Peters confession,421 and he characterized lterer and spteren Galilean periods on that

basis. He proposed that the events contained in John 6 were especially significant for this turning

point: after the feeding of the five thousand, the crowds tried to make Jesus king and he ran away

(6:15). The event initiated a stage of the ministry characterized by hiddenness and inneren

Entscheidung.422 Hereafter Jesus no longer ministered in and around Capernaum or in

synagogues.423 He instead addressed the people as a whole, went to pagan lands, and began to

form his own separate community of followers (cf. e.g. John 6:66-67).424

(ii) Theodor Keims three volume Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara appeared in 1867-

1872.425 Keim, unlike Holtzmann and Weizscker, confided more in Matthew than Mark (or

Urmarkus), but he still was quite free to rearrange.426 He argued that Matthews structure, though

sometimes inaccurate,427 evidenced that Jesus ministry had two great stages, and he called

upon Hase and Weizscker as important predecessors in this thought.428 Keim famously called

the first period der galilischen Fruhling (the Galilean Spring) and the second the die

421
Weizscker, Untersuchungen ber die evangelische Geschichte, 305.
422
Weizscker, Untersuchungen ber die evangelische Geschichte, 306, also 332.
423
Weizscker, Untersuchungen ber die evangelische Geschichte, 395, 441.
424
Weizscker, Untersuchungen ber die evangelische Geschichte, 397, 399-400, 440.
Compare with his claim that the Sermon on the Mount was addressed to the pious among the
people generally (336).
425
See Theodor Keim, The History of Jesus of Nazara, Freely Investigated in its
Connection with the National Life of Israel, and Related in Detail (trans. Arthur Ransom; 6 vols.;
2nd ed.; London: Williams and Norgate, 1876-83).
426
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 1:71-72, 87, 138-41.
427
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 1:87: In spite of the general preservation of the
correct sequence of events, the exact chronology of the lesser details has been lost, both in the
sayings and in the narratives Moreover: some facts are artificially brought together and
given either too early or too late a date in the ministry. Cf. 3:5.
428
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 1:viii.

146
galilischen Strme (the Galilean Storms).429 In the first Jesus was an idealistic teacher. Certain

portions of the Sermon on the Mountexcluding the mention of the judgment of the Messiah,

and the warnings about false prophets (which he placed in the Galilean Storms)come from this

earlier time, as do his calls for repentance, many healings, and his widespread success among the

Galileans.430 Here Jesus was harsh to no one431 and his message was gracious.432 Keim

concluded that, should the Evangelists put forward in their narratives any traditions that do not

cohere with this character of the Galilean Spring, they have confused the correct historical

order. It was for this reason that Keim was suspicious of the Gospel of John.433

Through a series of conflicts and struggles, a startling and unexpected turning-point in

Jesus career led to the second period or the Galilean Storms.434 The Pharisees and other

religious leaders became jealous of Jesus popularity and began to debate him publically. 435 The

429
Keim also talked about a third period, which was the final week in Jerusalem. The
language of a Galilean spring appeared also in Renans Vie.
430
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 3:16-35.
431
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 3:10.
432
Keim thought that the woes in Lukes version of the Beatitudes did not square with the
character of the Galilean Springtime. He wrote: only the morose world-hating Ebionite of
Lukes source is able to break up the eight beatitudes into four blessings and four woes (History
of Jesus of Nazara, 3:75).
This is a key difference from Weizsckers investigation, and also explains why John
433

6:66which was crucial for Weizsckerplays little role in Keims work.

434
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 4:1: Across the blue spring sky of Galilee, over the
fresh green and the fragrant blossoms of the initial period of Jesus ministry, over the joyous
mood of the people and the disciples, even over the successful work of the first and solitary
labourer of the kingdom, there spread dark clouds, growing from scarcely perceptible specks to
huge threatening masses
435
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 4:5-16. He thought it was not possible to know the
exact order of the controversy stories. The best one can do is to say they came from the later
Galilean period generally (4:16).

147
people of Galilee wavered in their enthusiasm, and Jesus, in response, delivered the Parable of

the Sower and other parables (e.g. Parable of the Dragnet; Parable of the Marriage Feast; Parable

of the Fig Tree; Parable of Demons Returning Sevenfold).436 It was in this period that Jesus

warned of the consequences of not repenting (Matt 11:21; 12:41), talked about the necessity of

breaking with family (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26), said that he came to bring not peace but sword

(Matt 10:34), and that the gate to life was narrow (Matt 7:13; Luke 13:23).437 He started talking

about a wicked and adulterous generation and delivered a woe against Capernaum, Chorazin,

and Bethsaida (Matt 11:21-24).438 Although there were glimmers of success in this period, the

signs of the fall were clear, and Jesus became fearful of arrest and began to flee from Antipas

throughout Galilee.439 Over time Jesus reckoned with the fact of rejection, and resolved upon a

march to Jerusalem, a struggle for life or death, an attempt to save his people from the internal

and external enemy by the sacrifice of his own life.440 Jesus believed that his death would

cancel the liability of the people for rejecting him.441

(iii) Another important work is the two volume Leben Jesu by Bernard Weiss (1882).442

Weiss was convinced that historical sequence of the events cannot certainly be established from

436
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 4:107-21, 131 (it wasthe purpose of Jesus to
speak in parables because hitherto the people, seeing, had seen nothing [italics orig.]).
437
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 4:78.
438
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 4:123. He comments here: (these) last summonses
to the kingdom of heaven, in the form of threats of exclusion from that kingdom, betray the
ultimate aim of gaining the people.
439
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 4:216, 226, 231, 235, etc.
440
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 4:257 (italics orig.).
441
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 4:281.
442
Bernard Weiss, The Life of Christ (trans. John Walter Hope; 3 vols; Clarks Foreign
Theological Library 14-16; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1883).

148
our Gospels,443 partly because the earliest Gospela collection of sayings of Jesus in some

narrative form (e.g. Papias logia)did not accurately preserve the correct chronology,444 partly

because each of the Synoptics also rearranges the other main narrative source in different

ways,445 and partly because of faulty memory.446 Thus, the researcher had to rely on a topical

uniting of what is related when the attempt to establish the chronology of the individual portions

proves futile.447 This topical uniting involved the placing of various Gospel traditions into

different periods in the ministry.

In the earliest period, Weiss thought that Jesus aimed to change the politico-national

conditions by calling the people to share his ethical vision for the kingdom of God.448

The agenda took for granted that Every prophetic promise was either expressly or tacitly

connected with the condition of the nations conversion, and in the same way each and every

result of His ministry was dependent on the position the nation took up towards Him.449 Early

443
Weiss, Life of Christ, 1:204.
444
Weiss, Life of Christ, 1:35-36.
Hence he claimed nothing can be more uncritical than to have a Life of Jesus
445

founded on Mark alone. Cf. Weiss, Life of Christ, 1:48. On Matthew, see 1:59-60.
446
Weiss, Life of Christ, 1:134: memory is obliged to throw a bridge over the increasing
intervals between the actual occurrence of the events or the time in which the continued
intercourse with Jesus furnished the corrective of any inaccurate view of them, and the time
when the communication of them was made.
447
Weiss, Life of Christ, 1:205. Weiss was found more convincing than Keim by W.
Frantzen, Die Leben Jesu-Bewegung seit Strauss: nach Uhlhorn, Luthardt, B. Weiss u.A.:
Vortrag (Dorpat: W. Frantzen, 1898), 22-23.
448
Weiss, Life of Christ, 2:70. Weiss believed that Jesus had theocratic hopes but he left
the how of accomplishing it to God. In this way he distanced himself from Reimarus and Hase.
449
Weiss, Life of Christ, 2:69.

149
success fueled the hope that the ideal kingdom of the biblical prophets might be established.450

But rather soon Jesus encountered conflicts that led to the disappointment of those hopes. Such a

crisis occurred over time and not all at once. For even as Jesus delivered the Parable of the

Sower to explain the resistance to his conception of the kingdom, he did not thereby abandon his

mission to the people at large. So too, Jesus staged a number of attempts to win the crowds to his

cause, notably sending out his twelve disciples (a last endeavour to secure, if possible, wider

acceptance451), and feeding the five thousand. But Jesus failed. After the mass feeding in

particular, Jesus knew that the people would not accept him as the Messiah he proclaimed to

be.452 This turning-point of His life453 led ultimately to the realization of a new telos for his

ministry. His words became more sorrowful and pessimistic,454 and he began to see his death as

required for the salvation of the people.455 Jesus had to atone for the sin of the people that

hindered the consummation of Gods will.456

All three of these Lives contain treasures both old and new. It is not difficult to see why.

On the one hand, they all arrive at slightly different perspectives on periodization because they

have different source-critical assumptions. (But because they use primarily the synoptics, the

difference is minimal.) They also are longer than most pre-1850 studies of Jesus and are written

450
E.g. Weiss, Life of Christ, 2:75, 107, 191.
451
Weiss, Life of Christ, 2:310.
452
Weiss, Life of Christ, 2:390.
453
Weiss, Life of Christ, 2:394.
454
Cf. e.g. Weiss, Life of Christ, 3:9-17 (e.g. Matt 12:42, Luke 11:33-6; 12:49).
455
Weiss, Life of Christ, 3:69.
456
Weiss, Life of Christ, 3:74. Weiss claimed that, should Jesus had known early on that
he would die, It would only have paralyzed the moral power and joyful enthusiasm of His
work (3:67).

150
in continuous narrative (rather than short comments on individual pericopae, as in Hase),457

which allowed them to frame their Galilean crisis in more detail than their predecessors.458 On

the other hand, their similarity with each other and with earlier works is due to extensive

borrowing of ideas and kindred interpretive approaches. They believe that certain stories and

even themes in the Gospels presuppose particular backstories.459 They argue on the basis of

common sense.460 They identify and try to resolve tensions in the tradition, whether

theological in nature or related to Jesus attitude and tone. The notion of an atoning death is set

apart from the earlier teaching material.

We could consider numerous other German Lives from this period, but it would only

repeat the impression provided by these three notable ones.461 Luigi Salvatorelli was right to

457
Brown, Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 167.
458
Keims thoroughness won the approval of many. Cf. Frederic Lichtenberger, History
of German Theology in the Nineteenth Century (Edinburgh: Clark, 1889), 413 (Keims work is
one of the most complete, most careful, and most ingenious that has been written on the life of
Jesus); J. Estlin Carpenter, The Bible in the Nineteenth Century: Eight Lectures (New York;
Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903), 282.
459
E.g. Weizscker, Untersuchungen ber die evangelische Geschichte, 439, argues that
a change of circumstances had occurred on the basis of certain traits in the history itself
(gewisse Zge in der Geschichte selbst).
460
E.g. Weizscker, Untersuchungen ber die evangelische Geschichte, 380 (on Jesus
publicity); Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 1:87; 2:6-7; Weiss, Life of Christ, 1:193, 205.
461
Cf. e.g. Schenkel, Character of Jesus; Beyschlag, Leben Jesu; Rudolf Otto, Life and
Ministry of Jesus: According to the Historical Critical Method, being a Course of Lectures
(trans. H. J. Whitby; Chicago: Open Court. 1908 [orig. 1901]); Oscar Holtzmann, The Life of
Jesus (trans. J. T. Bealby and M. A. Canney; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1904 [orig.
1901]); Otto Schmiedel, Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tbingen: Mohr,
1906). Also worth mentioning is Wilhelm Bousset in his Jesus (ed. W. D. Morrison; trans. Janet
Penrose Trevelyan; New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1906 [orig. 1904]), who is more skeptical
than the others listed here but still offered this assessment: We are no longer in a position to
reconstruct an historical picture of the ministry of Jesus in Galilee according to its chronological
development, for the narrative of our Gospels, with its prevailing timelessness and its frequent
arrangement of the words and deeds of Jesus in a designedly material order, does not provide the
means necessary for such a picture. Only a few scanty data can be established with certainty: that
151
generalize in this way: between 1860 and 1890, notwithstanding the differences in views of

literary criticism and in theological opinions, the representation of the internal and external

history of Jesus which grew up in Germany was remarkably uniform.462

Crisis-driven periodizations were popular not only in Germany, however. They appeared

also in the English and French speaking worlds. Despite the more conservative inroads to critical

biblical scholarship in Britain, the famous Life of Christ by Frederic Farrar (1875) adopted many

features of the crisis idea in German Lives.463 His Jesus encountered growing opposition

throughout his ministry, experienced a marked crisis of rejection after the feeding of the five

thousand, and eventually left for Jerusalem with only words of woe for three Galilean cities.464

his success and the enthusiasm of the multitude steadily increased at first; that he gradually
gathered round him a band of disciples and followers whose devotion was unbounded, but that
then a gradual slackening of enthusiasm set in, and that towards the end of his Galilean ministry
he saw himself surrounded by dangers, which he sought to avoid by a considerable journey
towards the north; that his following grew less and less, and that he deliberately restricted
himself to the instruction of his own disciples (11-12).
462
Salvatorelli, From Locke to Reitzenstein, 303. One review in 1872 wrote: Lives of
Jesus multiply with a rapidity that makes hopeless all freshness, and very much worth. They
simply repeat one another like sermons. See The English Life of Jesus by Thomas Scott,
British Quarterly Review 56 (1872): 269-71 at 269. Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus,
200, was similarly bold: The works of Renan, Strauss, Schenkel, Weizscker and Keim are in
essence only different ways of carrying out a single ground-plan. To read them one after another
is simply to be appalled at the stereotyped uniformity of the world of thought in which they
move. Cf. John Kloppenborg, Holtzmanns Life of Jesus According to the A Source: Part 1,
JSHJ 4 (2006): 75-108 at 93.
463
On the reception of German biblical criticism in Britain, see Pals, Victorian Lives,
27-29. T & T Clark published translations of more conservative German works in their series
Biblical Cabinet and Foreign Theological Library. On Renans impact in Britain, see ibid,
38-39, 77. Hases was translated in 1860, Keim in 1873.
464
Frederic Farrar, Life of Christ (2 vols; New York: E.P. Dutton, 1875), 1:410-21; 2:99
(And now the time has come for Him to set forth, and it must be in sorrow. He left, indeed,
some faithful hearts behind Him; but how few! Galilee had rejected Him, as Judea had rejected
Him), 100 (on the Galilean woes: With such thoughts in His heart, and such words on His lips,
he started forth from the scene of His rejected ministry; and on all this land, and most of all on
that region of it, the woe has fallen).

152
Similar motifs abound in other British works, such as Richard Hansons Jesus of History and

Edward Clodds Jesus of Nazareth.465 In the United States, Lyman Abbott claimed that Jesus

teaching changed after experiencing rejection, and he identified the mission of the twelve, the

feeding of the five thousand, and the bread of life discourse as the crisis of the ministry.466

Another American critic, James Stalker, labeled the three years of ministry the year of

obscurity, the year of public favor, and the year of opposition, respectively, and he situated

the attempt to make Jesus king (John 6:15) and the subsequent bread of life discourse as the key

point of crisis in the ministry.467 Many French Lives of Jesus hummed a similar tune, such as that

of Edmond Stapfer.468

As a testament to the popularity of these crisis motifs, it is worth noting that some of

them even emerged from more conservative theological circles where one would expect that

certain doctrinal commitments would mitigate such readings. It is true that theological

developments in this century, such as kenotic Christology, made, for some, the very human Jesus

465
Richard Hanson, Jesus of History (London: Williams and Norgate, 1869), 179 (the
mission of Jesus, so far as Galilee is concerned, appears to have ended in failure); Edward
Clodd, Jesus of Nazareth: Embracing a Sketch of Jewish History to the Time of His Birth
(London: C. Kegan Paul, 1880), 232 (Success rapidly attended his mission); 297 (the
disappointment was keen, and gave a sternness to his words); etc.
466
Lyman Abbott, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life and Teachings (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1869), 275, 284 (A marked change also characterizes Christs public instructions),
302-17 (on the crisis).
467
James Stalker, The Life of Jesus Christ (Chicago; New York: Fleming H. Revell,
1880), 104 (John 6:15 an hour of sad and bitter shame), 105 ([Jesus himself] struck the
fatalblow at His popularity).
468
Cf. Edmond Stapfer, Jsus-Christ, sa personne, son autorit, son oeuvre (3 vols.;
Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1896-98). See also Henri Didon, Jsus Christ (Paris: E. Plon,
Nourrit and Cie, 1890).

153
of the crisis theory less threatening.469 But the extent to which the notions of change,

disappointment, and rejection appear in these works from conservative groups is a remarkable

feature of 19th-century religious history. A full discussion here would take us too far afield, but

we can mention the works of Samuel Andrews,470 William Hanna,471 John Geikie,472 A.M.

Fairbairn,473 and Alfred Edersheim474none of which are remembered for pushing theological

469
See God and Incarnation in Mid-Nineteenth Century German Theology (trans. and ed.
Claude Welch; New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 8 (historical Jesus study [esp.
Strauss] was a point of departure for the three major kenotic theologians of the 19th century:
Thomasius, Dorner, Biedermann); Dawe, Form of a Servant, 87-91, 122. Cf. Thomas R.
Thompson, Nineteenth-Century Kenotic Christology: the Waxing, Waning, and Weighing of a
Quest for a Coherent Orthodoxy, in Exploring Kenotic Christology: the Self-emptying of God
(ed. C. Stephen Evans; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 74-111 at 7677.
470
Samuel J. Andrews, The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth: Considered in its
Historical, Chronological, and Geographical Relations (New York: Charles Scribner, 1863),
119 (the wish and will of God [was] that the Jews should receive His Son), 341 (Gradually
the great crowds, that at first thronged around him, diminished; the novelty of His first
appearance passed away; His calls to repentance were by most disregarded; His miracles,
wonderful as they were, were not of a kind to satisfy the populace that He was the expected the
Messiah; His enemies were active and unscrupulous in representing Him as a blasphemer),
342 (Against those cities which He had often visited, and where He had wrought His mightiest
works, He pronounced a fearful judgment. Thus in Galilee as in Judea, Jesus was despised and
rejected of men).
471
William Hanna, The Life of Christ (3 vols.; New York: Hurst & Co., 1869), 1:152 (on
growing opposition), 222 (now, at the close of his second circuit through Galilee, after nearly a
years labor bestowed upon that province, the collision came, and the whole manner of his
speech and action towards them was changed [discussing John 6:15 in context, which he calls
a marked crisis]); 2:177-79 (on the curtness of Jesus expressions and his general attitude on
his journey to Jerusalem), 182.
472
John Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ (2 vols.; New York: D.
Appleton and Co., 1880), 2:42 (on widening success in Galilee), 91 (on breaking the Sabbath
in John 5: This was the turning point in the life of Jesus. Till now, He had enjoyed a measure of
toleration and even of acceptance, but, henceforth, all was changed. Jerusalem was no longer
safe for Him, and, even in Galilee, He was dogged by determined enmity. The shadow of the
Cross darkened His whole future career), 199 (The false enthusiasm which had hitherto
gathered the masses round Jesus was henceforth at an end, now that their worldly hopes of Him
as the Messiah were exploded).
473
A. M. Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ (New York: D. Appleton, 1882), 183: In
the later teaching of Jesus, darkness deepened round the Heros path. His consciousness
154
boundaries. For the layperson, Thomas Taylor, Earl Taylor and Charles Morgan did not shy

away from breaking the ministry of Jesus into periods of varying success in their devotional

Studies in the Life of Christ: A Year Longs Course of Thirty-Five Lessons, Providing a Daily

Scheme for Personal Study.475 Lastly, and perhaps most surprisingly, we must mention 19th-

century Dispensationalism, beginning with John Nelson Darby (1800-82).476 The views of Darby

and his follows would differ over particulars,477 but some forms of their system would claim that

Jesus had offered the Kingdom of Heaven (a terrestrial kingdom to be established in Jerusalem)

to Israel (e.g. his Jewish contemporaries), but the realization of this offer was contingent on

Israels obedience.478 Because Jesus was rejected, then, a new dispensation or period of

grew more exalted as His way grew more troubled, but he was sadder. Cities, once zealous,
were cold; crowds, once arduous, were specious; enemies, once soft-spoken and fearful, were
harsh and arrogant.
474
Alfred Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (2 vols.; 8th ed.; New York:
Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896 [orig. 1883]), 1:451 (on the first Galilean ministry), 2:25 (on
John 6 and the Great crisis in popular feeling), 2:75-76.
475
Thomas Eddy Taylor, S. Earl Taylor and Charles Herbert Morgan, Studies in the Life
of Christ: A Year Longs Course of Thirty-Five Lessons, Providing a Daily Scheme for Personal
Study. Adapted Also to Class-Work (Boston; Chicago: United Society of Christian Endeavor,
1901), 75-76 (famehad now so increased that great multitudes followed him), 77 (Jesus had
until this point taken no steps toward a formal and open separation from Judaism ), 119
(trouble was sure to follow his straightforward denunciation of sin).
476
The lines of communication between 19th-century Lives of Jesus and the
Dispensational movement are not clear.
477
Defining Dispensationalism is notoriously difficult. Cf. Mark S. Sweetnam,
Defining Dispensationalism: A Cultural Studies Perspective, JRH 34 (2010): 191-212 at 194
(on the continuity from Darby to the mid 20th century). Regardless, the issue is not as important
in our case, since our interest is not in the definition of groups but in shared interpretive patterns.
478
Here Darby himself: Suppose for a moment that Christ had not been rejected, the
kingdom would have been set up on earth. Cf. Lectures on the Second Coming of Christ, in
The Collected Writings of J.N. Darby (ed. William Kelly; 34 vols.; 2nd ed.; London: G.M.
Morrish, n.d.), 11:313-512 at 431. See also George N. H. Peters (although himself not a
dispensationalist, he agrees on many of these issues), The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord
Jesus, the Christ, as Covenanted in the New Testament (3 vols; New York; London: Funk &
155
salvation history began which centered on the preaching of grace, a universal Kingdom of God

for all people, and the activity of the church.479 The argument has its own peculiar internal logic,

but many of the interpretive moves we have seen already: that Jesus earlier teaching, especially

in the Sermon on the Mount, operates in a works-righteousness framework that stands opposed

to the theology of the cross;480 that the prophetic hope of Israel was for the ethical renewal of the

people; and that certain sayings of Jesus presuppose rejection and evince disappointment.481

Wagnalls, 1884) 1:176, 276, 362. Cf. Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its
Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 27, 29, 32
(National repentance was the condition on which the kingdom was to be instituted, but Israel
did not repentit rejected its King); Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British
and American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press,
1970), 67.
479
Representative here, though later, is Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (8
vols; Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 4:174 (no record of any step toward the formation
of the ChurchuntilHis rejection as King is evident), 178 (As the King came nearer to His
death, and the rejection became more evident, He made mention of that aspect of the rule of God
in the individual heart which was to characterize the hitherto unannounced age of grace).
480
In touch with these ideas in the early 20th century is Cyrus I. Scofield, The New
Testament (vol. 2 of The Scofield Bible Correspondence School; Dallas: s.n., 1907), 180 (the
student will note that the Sermon on the Mount is pure law); Chafer, Systematic Theology,
4:175, 211-12; 5:97 (the Sermon on the Mount is addressed to the Jew before the cross). See
also Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, 1:368 (he calls the cross Christs second work). Cf. Daniel P.
Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and
Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 149-50.
481
See J.R. Graves, The Work of Christ in the Covenant of Redemption; Developed in
Seven Dispensations (Memphis: Baptist Book House, 1883), 272 (on the men of violence
saying), 274 (Not one of the cities or towns of Palestine, not even the village of Bethlehem,
where he was bornor that of Nazareth, where he was brought up, nor Capernaum, in which his
mightiest works were done, was converted by all his preaching and his miraclesthey rejected
him as an imposter, and even sought his life); Scofield, New Testament, 181 (our Lord points
out how, really, His rejection is already apparent. That generation would have neither john the
Baptist nor Himself [xi. 16-19]. The cities in which His mightiest works had been done had not
been aroused to faith [xi. 20-24] and there remains for them a sorer judgment than that which had
been sent upon Sodom). Cf. Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive
Study of the Kingdom of God as Set Forth in the Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959),
157-58; Fuller, Gospel and Law, 158.

156
 In all, therefore, key motifs of the crisis theory found international representation in the

19th and early 20th century, and not only among Bible scholars.

According to traditional surveys of the Quest we should stop at this point, since it is often

thought that Albert Schweitzer and the eschatological school marks the end of the old

quest.482 But this study must agree with recent criticism that has challenged this standard

typology,483 for it does not hold true in regard to the crisis idea. Without denying the significance

of early 20th-century developments, it is evident that the discovery of Jewish eschatology in

Jesus message did not fundamentally alter the way that the ministry of Jesus was understood.

Instead, this eschatology functioned within and alongside many of those same crisis motifs that

characterized earlier Lives.484

One aspect of truth in the conventional periodizations of the Quest is that Schweitzer did,

indeed, try to distance himself from the Liberal Lives of Jesus, and this included their crisis

theory on two levels.485 Schweitzers criticisms deserve mention at the outset because they help

focus his views on the historical Jesus. The first is that Schweitzer opposed any separation of the

ethical and eschatological in the Gospels. By Schweitzers time the relationship between

ethics and eschatology had proved to be a particularly confounding theological tension in the

482
Cf. Eddy and Beilby, Quest for the Historical Jesus: An Introduction, 9-54 at 20.
See also W. Barnes Tatum, In Quest of Jesus: A Guidebook (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 71;
Telford, Major Trends and Interpretive Issues, 55-56.
483
Cf. Allison, Secularizing Jesus, Resurrecting Jesus, 1-26; Fernando Bermejo Rubio,
The Fiction of the Three Quests: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Historiographical
Paradigm, JSHJ 7 (2009): 211-53.
484
Cf. e.g. Hermann Freiherr von Soden, Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (Berlin:
Alexander Duncker, 1904), 64-69.
See Albert Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God: The Secret of Jesus
485

Messiahship and Passion (trans. Walter Lowrie; Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1970 [orig. 1901]), 59-
69.

157
Gospels, and there were many different strategies for resolving it,486 one being some crisis theory

which assigned each to a different period in the ministry.487 Schweitzers own argument, of

course, was that eschatology dominated the whole (hence Konsequente Eschatologie),488 and

the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount made good sense inbecause they were subordinate to

his eschatological hope. The logic of the proposal relates directly to our discussion thus far. The

real target of Schweitzers criticism is the assumption that Jesus intended to establish the

kingdom by having the people adopt his ethical teachings.489 For Schweitzer, the establishment

of the kingdom was purely an act of God. Hence Jesus teachings in the Sermon on the Mount

did not aim to bring the kingdom but, as an Interimsethik, to anticipate the kind of righteous life

that the kingdom would require.490 Thus, Schweitzer opposed one manner of periodizing the

486
For attempts to spiritualize the language or assign the eschatology to the early church,
cf. e.g. Timothe Colani, Jsus-Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps (Strasbourg:
Truettel and Wurtz, 1864); Gustav Volkmar, Jesus Nazarenus: und die erste christliche Zeit, mit
den beiden ersten Erzhlern (Zrich: Caesar Schmidt, 1882); Wilhelm Bousset, Jesu Predigt im
ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892). For an attempt to
reconcile them, see Shailer Matthews, The Messianic Hope in the New Testament (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1905).
487
See Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 185-86; Mystery of the Kingdom, 85-
86. Cf. Gsta Lundstrm, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus: A History of
Interpretation from the Last Decades of the Nineteenth Century to the Present Day (trans. Joan
Bulman.; Richmond: John Knox Press, 1963 [orig. 1947]), 52-53, 59-60; Kissinger, Lives of
Jesus, 42.
488
Here Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 238, nods to Weiss as instigating the
third great antithesis of the 19th-century Quest: either eschatological or non-eschatological!
Though he thought Weiss was wrong to consider only the preaching of Jesus.
489
Or, even more pointedly, against those who thought the ethical teachings of Jesus
and the association or society they helped fosterconstituted the kingdom. Most influential
here was Albrecht Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Vershnung (3
vols.; Bonn: A. Marcus, 1870-74). Cf. Norman Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of
Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), 14-16; Lundstrm, Kingdom of God in the
Teaching of Jesus, 3-9.
490
See Schweitzer, Mystery of the Kingdom, 95-99.

158
ministry by resolving the theological tension at the root of it. If thoroughgoing eschatology can

explain the whole, including the Sermon on the Mount, then there is no need to posit any change

of mind on this fundamental matter.491

The second criticism was closely related to the first. Because Jesus kingdom message

was fundamentally about divine not human action, Schweitzer also challenged the idea that

Jesus mindset changed in accordance with his reception among the people.492 In particular, he

rejected the popular notion that early success and growing opposition shaped Jesus

understanding of his mission.493 Not only did he argue that evidence for early success and

growing opposition is lacking,494 he further contended that Jesus was unaffected by such matters,

given his eschatological worldview.495 For Schweitzer, Jesus dogma (e.g. eschatological

perspective) was not shaped by external circumstances; it was actually his dogma that drove

491
The rationale is similar to Schweitzers defense of Jesus predictions of coming
suffering in Matt 10 in Quest of the Historical Jesus, 361: the Lives of Jesuscan(not) make
anything of it. They either strike it out, or transfer it to the last gloomy epoch of the life of
Jesus, regard it as an unintelligible anticipation, or put it down to the account of primitive
theology, which serves as a scrap-heap for everything for which they cannot find a place in the
historical life of Jesus. See Mystery of the Kingdom, 89, 92-93, 115.
E.g. Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 358 on the rejection at Nazareth: (it)
492

makes no difference whatever to the nearness of the coming of the kingdom. Cf. Mystery of the
Kingdom, 116.
493
See Walter P. Weaver, Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-50
(Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 28.
494
Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 359 (theologians of the modern historical
school invented the theory of growing opposition and waning support); idem, Mystery of the
Kingdom, 64-69, 81. Cf. Weaver, Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 28; Dawes,
Historical Jesus Question, 124.
495
Instructive is Schweitzers reading of the so-called Parables of Growth. For
Schweitzer, these were not reflections on Jesus growing success, but rather pointed to the
sudden and mysterious power of God. Cf. Mystery of the Kingdom, 106-10.

159
his actions and his responses to unforeseen situations.496 Interestingly enough, Schweitzers 2nd

German edition of the Quest in 1913 would deemphasize the unconditioned nature of Jesus

eschatology, since after finishing an intense study of Jesus mental health from 1905-1912,

Schweitzer thought it important, for Jesus to be considered sane, that the changes in Jesus ideas

(and behavior) are always conditioned by outward circumstances and represent completely

logical consequences in harmony with the total picture.497

Despite these clear points of difference from earlier Lives, however, Schweitzer adopted

key aspects of the earlier crisis theory in his own portrait. One is that Schweitzer perpetuated the

common distinction between Jesus ethical teaching and the material relating to his death. For

Schweitzer both the teaching and the resolve to die were subject to imminent eschatological

hope, and hence were not in conflict conceptually. But he still focused the activity of Jesus

around each consecutively, and divided them by a moment of crisis in the ministry. Schweitzers

Jesus, famously, falsely predicted that the end would come before his disciples returned from

496
Note here the contrast with Keim, who wrote in an important article that influenced
Holtzmann, Schenkel, and many others in the late 19th century: (Jesus) knowledge of the
worldcame not through intuition but rather through perception and, indeed, through an entirely
uncustomary acuity in meticulous, critical, and ironic observation of reality. Cf. Theodor Keim,
Die menschliche Entwicklung Jesu Christi: akademische Antrittsrede am 17. Dezember 1860
(Zrich: Orell, Fssli, 1861), 13.
497
Albert Schweitzer, The Psychiatric Study of Jesus, Exposition and Criticism (trans.
Charles R. Joy; Boston: Beacon Press, 1948 [orig. 1913]), 64 note 14. I owe the point to the
excellent study by Carl R. Holladay, Schweitzers Jesus: Crushed on the Wheel of the World?
EC 4 (2012): 435-67. The 2nd ed. of the Quest was considerably longer than the 1st, and
Schweitzer would omit his famous depiction of Jesus being crushed on the wheel of the world.
He would also add a new discussion of Jesus Davidic ancestry, which showed that he was not
insane for claiming to be the Messiah. Further, he added a longer discussion of Jewish
eschatology, which, according to James Carleton Paget, Albert Schweitzers Second Edition of
The Quest of the Historical Jesus, BJRL 9 (2010): 3-38 at 18, portrayed Jesus as a distinctive
and considerable thinker. Holladay also notes that the 2nd ed. changes make Jesus appear
healthy and normal, given his first-century setting (444).

160
preaching in the land of Israel (Matt 10:23).498 This failure and disappointment made Jesus

change his strategy and plan his journey to Jerusalem to die so that the kingdom could come.

Thus, Schweitzer positioned the interim ethics before the Matt 10:23 crisis and the traditions

about the death of Jesus and its soteriological significance after it. Such a reconstruction, and

particularly its underlying perspective that disappointment made clear the necessity of death, is a

conventional periodization that Schweitzer learned from others and tweaked to fit his own

purposes.

There is also continuity between Schweitzer and earlier Lives in terms of his approach to

reconstructing the Jesus of history. Schweitzer may have decried the notion that Jesus teaching

about the kingdom developed throughout his ministry, but he himself was very much

interested in finding (what he called) the inner connexion among pericopae.499 Schweitzer

assumed, alongside his colleagues, that the Gospels were not always accurate chronologically.

But he shared their confidence that, by inferring the backstories behind particular pericopae, and

by paying close attention to the logic and assumptions of Jesus sayings, one could provide a

rough sketch of how things went.500 In finding such inner connexion, Schweitzer routinely

498
Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 359: To this extent modern theology is
justified when it distinguishes two periods in the life of Jesus; an earlier, in which He is
surrounded by the people, and a later in which He is deserted by them, and travels about with
the Twelve only. Schweitzer differs from other critics in terms of the cause of this transition
(Jesus own eschatological prediction vs. lack of success among the people).
499
Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 7, 88, etc. Cf. Alexander J. M. Wedderburn,
Jesus and the Historians (WUNT 269; Tbingen: Mohr, 2010), 59-60; Cees den Heyer, Historic
Jesuses, in Holmn and Porter, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2:1079-1101 at
1081-82.
500
Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 7: There is really no other means of
arriving at the order and inner connexion of the facts of the life of Jesus than the making and
testing of hypotheses. If the tradition preserved by the Synoptists really includes all that
happened during the time that Jesus was with his disciples, the attempt to discover the connexion
must succeed sooner or later. Further: We only begin to understand these (individual events)
161
psychologized the Gospels in quite the same manner as the liberal questers, at times reaching

the same conclusions.501 After all, Schweitzers most famous psychologizationthe

disappointment caused by the failure of the Matt 10:23 predictionwas not an unprecedented

interpretation.502 Schweitzer even gave liberal criticism credit for having used natural

psychology on the tradition, which he thought prepared for his own eschatological

psychology.503 The difference is semantic.

Continuity with the Lives of Jesus is even clearer in the work of Schweitzers

predecessor, Johannes Weiss (1892). Weiss argued that Jesus initially expected the kingdom to

come soon, but then experienced a delay. He wrote: we may infer indirectly that at some

earlier period in his ministry Jesus believed the coming of the Kingdom closer than turned out

later to be the case.504 Moreover, he argued that Jesus belief that the end had been postponed

arose from the pressure of certain circumstances.505 In particular, he noted that Jesus found

historically when we can mentally place them in an intelligible connexion (7). Cf. James M.
Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus and Other Essays (Rev. ed.; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1983 [orig. 1959]), 34, 194.
501
This is a frequent criticism of Schweitzer. Cf. Joachim Jeremias, The Problem of the
Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964), 5-6; Weaver, Historical Jesus in the
Twentieth Century, 30 (Schweitzer knew the mind of Jesus, even at the point of death).
502
Cf. already dHolbach, Ecce Homo, 176. Note also that Hanson, Jesus of History,
argued that much success inspired Jesus to send out his disciples to evangelize, promising that
the Messiah would come before their return (Matt 10:23). But when this failed to happen, his
popularity began to fade. For a selective survey of some other 19th-century readings of Matt
10:23 that identified some kind of imminence here, see Martin Knzi, Das Naherwartungslogion
Matthus 10,23: Geschichte seiner Auslegung (BGBE 9; Tbingen: Mohr, 1970), 89-97.
503
Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 222.
504
Johannes Weiss, Jesus Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (trans. R. H. Hiers and
D. L. Holland; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971 [orig. 1892]), 85. On Weiss see Perrin,
Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus, 17-23.
505
Weiss, Proclamation of the Kingdom, 86.

162
little fruit of repentance, that the Galileans thought Jesus was a revolutionary Messiah (e.g.

misunderstanding), and that the religious leaders rejected and opposed him. Thus, for Weiss,

Jesus adjusted his outlook on account of growing opposition, and decided to go to Jerusalem to

remove the guilt of the people which had postponed the coming of the kingdom.506 To be

clear: Weiss Jesus, like Schweitzers, had an eschatological outlook throughout the entirety of

the ministry. His Jesus did not begin with an ethical, Ritschlian kingdom, and then move to

eschatology when matters became difficult.507 But it is nonetheless true that, for Weiss, external

circumstancesand precisely those circumstances that earlier Lives had highlightedcaused an

adaptation in Jesus eschatological scenario, and he grouped together and separated

diachronically certain sayings and deeds of Jesus from others that do not seem to share the same

outlook.

Our conclusion, then, is this: the eschatological school did make important breaks from

earlier work, but some of the periodizations, the psychologizations, and the identifications of

smaller clusters of congenial material betray more continuity than discontinuity. Hence Weiss

and Schweitzer offered the 20th century not a wholly different Jesus, and certainly not the end of

the theory of a Galilean crisis.508

Weiss, Proclamation of the Kingdom, 86. Cf. Salvatorelli, From Locke to

506

Reitzenstein, 317.
507
Cf. Lundstrm, Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus, 40-41; Kissinger, Lives of
Jesus, 37-38.
508
Note that, in Schweitzers second edition of the Quest, he lists in a footnote critics
who retain the modern historical outline of Jesus life into successful and unsuccessful periods.
See Quest of the Historical Jesus (ed. Bowden), 446, 544-45. So one can see how things had
continued.

163
 4.4. THE 19TH-CENTURY CRISIS THEORY: AN ASSESSMENT

A full assessment of the crisis theory must await the final section of this study. But to conclude

this chapter and to prepare for our later work, it is fitting to offer some initial reflections on the

problems and prospects of the crisis idea as it appeared in the 19th century. For it is clear, on the

one hand, that Schweitzers critique was not definitive, given how much of the earlier plotlines

he left intact. On the other, modern critics have too often preferred the opinion of Schweitzer or

other surveys to the more difficult task of responding to that literature on their own. The

unfortunate consequence is that earlier arguments too easily become straw men, and later

scholarship runs the risk of ignoring some of the better insights and repeating, perhaps

unknowingly, the ones that should have been forgotten. The following chapter, in fact, will make

the case that this has happened in regard to certain issues that pertain to a Galilean crisis.

For now, however, here are four problems that cast doubt on the workability of a Galilean

crisis as a historical hypothesisat least as it appears in these 19th-century works.

(i) It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the 19th-century Lives, and their Galilean crises,

could only be produced by overconfident historians.509 An odd thing happens after the general

fallout of harmony writing in the late 18th century: many critics were no longer confident that the

Gospel sources permitted such detailed harmonizations, but they remained confident in their own

abilities to reassemble the Gospels into a broadly reliable chronology.510 Hence 19th-century

509
Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide
(trans. John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998 [orig. 1996]), 5, rightly discuss the
optimism of the liberal Quest.
510
Charles E. McClelland, State, Society, and the University in Germany (1700-1914)
(Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 173, on German scholarship,
summarizes that critics were convinced that the knowledge of their predecessors was superficial
at best, and that bold acts of intelligence and will by the single scholar could uncover profound
secrets of the human world and the universe beyond.

164
skepticism focused primarily on the Gospels themselves, not on the aims and methods of the

historians using those texts.511 To be sure, in some ways 19th-century skepticism of the texts did

not go far enough. Critics were still, in general, far too credulous in their use of particular Gospel

chronologies,512 and many assumed the historicity of nearly every episode in the Gospels. But

the key point is that critics considered the reconstruction of the course of the ministry to be far

easier than it actually is.513 Many Lives of Jesus betray their overconfidence here with a weighty

silence: one finds few actual arguments for particular reconstructions of the ministry. In Hases

Leben Jesu, for instance, one finds the Gospel materials already reorganized into their respective

periods of activity, and the criteria by which Hase came to these determinations are never

disclosed.514 His presentation seems to assume that merely explaining the logic of the

periodization as a whole is sufficient to justify his particular reorganization. This is obviously a

significant oversight.
511
Illuminating is A. M. Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in Modern Theology (New York:
Charles Scribner, 1893): Harmonies have almost ceased to be, and instead we have discussions
as to the sources, sequence, dependence, independence, purpose, dates, of the four Gospels.
Lives of Christ by men of all schools, tendencies, churches, abound, each using some more or
less rigorous method.
512
Although subsequent criticism may have misrepresented the 19th century on this point;
see rightly Salvatorelli, From Locke to Reitzenstein, 291 (on Weisse).
513
Such warnings were, however, afoot at the time. See Strauss, Life of Jesus Critically
Examined, 277, 279; douard Reuss, tudes comparatives sur les trios premiers vangiles au
point de vue de leurs rapports dorigine et de dpendance mutuelle, Revue de thologie et de
philosophie chrtienne 10 (1855): 65-128 at 71 (aucun effort de science et de sagacit narrivera
jamais rtablir la chronologie vanglique); Martin Khler, The So-Called Historical Jesus
and the Historic, Biblical Christ (trans. Carl E. Braaten; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964 [orig.
1892]), 48-49, 89. Cf. the cautious attempt in Schmiedel, Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-
Forschung, 23-24.
514
Brown, Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 167 (consisted largely of reflections
on a concatenation of self-contained episodes). It should be noted, however, that the
presentation has much to do with the fact that Hases Leben was first written as a Lehrbuch
designed to accompany his lectures. So Fu, Die Auffassung des Lebens Jesu, 14, rightly calls
it ein Kompendium and ein Hilfsbuch fr seine Vorlesungen.

165
 Another aspect of this overconfident historiography concerns the degree of detail with

which critics reconstructed this Galilean crisis, especially from the 1860s on. For many, claims

about a major turning point (or turning points) in Jesus career were not self-contained arguments

about one or two episodes in the Gospels. They were rather integral to a much larger discussion

of Jesus psyche and the development of his messianic consciousness.515 At issue here is not

merely that questers were trying to understand Jesus overarching intentions.516 The problem is

that many of these historians believed they could trace the contours of Jesus thought life on the

basis of his experiences, as though one could draw a straight line from an event (in the Gospels)

to the interpretation or significance of that event in the mind of Jesus.517 Such matters are well

beyond our reach, even if they were not theoretically dubious. Many critics of 19th-century Jesus

study have amply raised similar critiques and there is little need to elaborate further.518

(ii) It is also apparent that many critics from this era relied on faulty premises about the

nature of messianism and first century Judaism. In terms of messianism, many Lives too readily

assumed the existence of a standard political messianic expectation in Jesus time. This
515
Apropos here are Bairds comments on Keim in From Deism to Tbingen, 390: the
magnitude of Keims accomplishment is the measure of its weakness. Here is a life of Jesus too
complete, too accurate, too fulsome in detailabove all, too confident.
516
Such an aim may be regarded as essential to any knowledge of Jesus as a historical
figure. See Ernst Baasland, Fourth Quest? What Did Jesus Really Want?, in Holmn and
Porter, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 1:31-56. Cf. Ben F. Meyer, Jesus
Ministry and Self-Understanding, in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of
Current Research (eds. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1994), 337-52;
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 101; Kim Huat Tan, The Zion Traditions and the Aims of
Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 4-5, 125-26.
517
Empiricism had a major impact on the understanding of human psychology in this
period. See Gary Hatfield, Psychology in Cambridge History of Philosophy (1790-1870), 241-
62.
518
Cf. Hans Conzelmann, Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), 6; Jrgen Becker,
Jesus of Nazareth (trans. James E. Crouch; New York; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 20; Stevens,
Historical Jesus and the Literary Imagination, 48 (on Renan); Bond, Historical Jesus, 10.

166
reification519 had significant impact on the plotlines of many Lives. Countless works saw in

Jesus ministry a struggle to choose a particular messianic vocation, and offered the political

messianic hope as the norm against which he continually fought; or, they presented the larger

failure of his Galilean mission as the consequence of his inability to sway his audience from their

carnal messianism (often culminating in the attempt of the people to make him king at John

6:15).520 The mischaracterization is partly due to reading Second Temple Jewish texts primarily

as background to the New Testament, since researchers were quick to make convenient

generalizations in hope to illuminate Christian origins.521

In terms of the nature of first century Judaism, many 19th-century Lives were prone to the

kind of caricatures and stereotypes that would later motivate E. P. Sanders to write Paul and

Palestinian Judaism.522 In particular, one often finds that critics began their work with the

presupposition that that the Judaism of Jesus day was a soulless and decrepit religion, wrongly

focused on trifling matters of law observance. Here questers borrowed a popular declension

narrative of Israels history that appeared in the work of Julius Wellhausen and other (largely

519
Cf. James Charlesworth, From Messianology to Christology: Problems and
Prospects, in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. James H.
Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1987), 3-35.
520
E.g. Hess, Lebensgeschichte Jesu, 1:lxxxiv; 2:235; de Wette, Lehrbuch der christliche
Dogmatik, 205, 209; Schenkel, A Sketch of the Character, 137 (Jesus had to cleanse the
messianic idea in Israel); Beyschlag, Das Leben Jesu, 1:279-80 (the sensual messianism leads to
an inevitable clash[einem unvermeidlichen Zusammensto]), 284 (on John 6:66); 2:259-67;
273 (Jesus replaced the carnal sensual messianism with a genuine, spiritual, heavenly [chte,
geistliche, und himmlische] one).
521
On the perils of NT background, see Steve Mason, Josephus and the New
Testament, the New Testament and Josephus: an Overview, in Josephus und das Neue
Testament (eds. Christfried Bttrich and Jens Herzer; Tubingen: Mohr, 2007), 15-48.
522
E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977).

167
Protestant) historians.523 It was also common for critics to frame the teachings of Jesus as an

alternative religious system to the Judaism of his time, often via binary abstractions such as Jesus

taught love, they taught legalism; Jesus taught inner righteousness, they taught external

observance; Jesus taught love of all people, they taught love of other Jews only; and so on.524

This portrayal of Judaism helped shape the Galilean crisis in these Lives, much like Luthers

portrayal of Judaism helped shape his own doctrine of justification by faith. The reason is that

the problem with Jesus audience that needed a solution was precisely the Christian

caricature of Judaism that the 19th century had projected onto the first. With so vast a chasm

between Jesus and Judaism, then, it could only be expected that he would come into sharp

conflict with the religious leaders, and ultimately be rejected by the people. Thus the failure of

Jesus became a testament to the depravity of first century Judaism, and upheld Jesus as a unique

religious genius who was ahead of his time.525 Some even argued against the crisis theory on the

523
Cf. Lou H. Silberman, Wellhausen and Judaism, Semeia 25 (1982): 75-82; John
Barton, Wellhausens Prolegomena to the History of Israel: Influences and Effects, Text and
Experience: Towards a Cultural Exegesis of the Bible (ed. Daniel Smith-Christopher; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 316-29.
524
See e.g. Baur, Church History, 1:30-33; Abbott, Jesus of Nazareth, 285; Bousset, Jesu
Predigt im ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum. On 19th-century depictions of Judaism, see Susannah
Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998),
66-75, 153-57, 190-93, 212-13; Halvor Moxnes, Jesus the Jew: Dilemmas of Interpretation, in
Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity: Essays in Honour of Heikki Risnen
(ed. Ismo Dunderberg et al.; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2002), 83-103; James D. G. Dunn, A New
Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2005), 58-63. On the Deists see Adam Sutcliffe, Judaism and Enlightenment (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2003).
525
See e.g. Reinhard, Plan of the Founder, 1 (The character of Jesus, the founder of the
Christian religion, is so unique, so extraordinary, and venerable, that even the enemies of this
religionmust acknowledge that it has not like it in history) 221-41; Willibald Beyschlag, New
Testament Theology, or, Historical Account of the Teaching of Jesus and of Primitive
Christianity According to the New Testament Sources (trans. Neil Buchanan; 2 vols.; Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1895 [orig. 1891-2]), 1:32 (the parables evince pure genius). Cf. also McGrath,
Making of Modern German Christology, 68-69 (on Ritschls influence on later study).

168
basis that Jesus must have known as he began the corrupt carnality of the Jewish nation(and

thus could not have) deceived himself as to suppose that he could suddenly transform the larger

part of such a nation into a true people of God.526 It hardly requires saying that all such claims

tell us only about 19th-century Europe.

(iii) An additional problem is that, while some periodizations of the ministry aimed to

resolve theological tensions in the Gospels, the diagnosis of such tensions remained in the eye of

the beholder. The history of the Quest teaches the point easily enough: researchers have not

identified the same inconsistencies. That reality points not just to the inherently subjective nature

of all historical writing, but to the heightened consequences of that subjectivity in this particular

case. Here ones periodization is subject to a macroscopic interpretation of the texts. If the

Gospels do not actually contain the theological tension that a particular critic presumes (which is

an interpretive decision), then there is no need to reorganize the material diachronically (via

periodization or excision).527 Reimarus work is a good example, for his reconstruction of the

pre- and post- Easter periods assumed there to be contrasting visions of the messianic task in the

Gospels. But it is now clear that Reimarus was not only selective in his reading of the Gospels,

he brought to the texts a reified category of political messianism that in many ways determined

his conclusions. Hence the ground for his periodization was sand. We will revisit the issue of

tension-finding in Chapter 6.

526
Neander, Life of Jesus Christ, 84. See too William J. Dawson, The Life of Christ
(Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs & Co., 1901), 187-95.
527
J. G. Osianders response/critique of Paulus and Hase in Bemerkungen ber die
evangelische Geschichte mit Beziehung auf ihre neueren Bearbeitungen in Paulus und Hases
Leben Jesu, Tbinger Zeitschrift 1 (1831): 125-67 at 147, noted that the posed antithesis in the
mood (Stimmung) of Jesus was only an alleged (one) (nu ein angeblicher).

169
 (iv) A final criticism concerns the relation between the crisis theory and the intellectual

ethos of the 19th century. On many levels, 19th-century Lives fit too comfortably in the bygone

dogmas of this period. The general critique has been made many times before, perhaps most

memorably by Schweitzer, who claimed at one point that the portraits by Renan, Strauss,

Schenkel, Weizscker, and Keim were fixed from the first, being determined by the mental

atmosphere and religious horizon of the (eighteen) sixties.528 But here we can be more specific

about particular influences on the construction of Galilean crises in these works.

As a first point, it is no coincidence that the emergence of multi-volume biographies of

Jesus in the mid to late 19th century coincided with the popularity of the Bildungsroman in

Europe.529 The plotlines of such novels-of-formation often detailed the development of

particular individuals through their experiences in the world. Moreover, it was common for a

protagonist to progress through the narrative via a series of conflicts and struggles that lead to

disappointments. The disappointments, in turn, were often redeemable and contributed to the

developing outlook (and maturity) of the main character. The parallel to the Lives is clear

enough, and indeed these historical reconstructions have a kind of literary artificiality to them. It

is likely here that, as with the impact of book format on the periodization of the life of Jesus (as

argued in Chapter 3), form has again shaped content to some degree. It is clear that the

economics of a consumer-driven book market created demand for such novelistic presentations

528
Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 200. Cf. Hoffmann, Les vies de Jsus, 95;
Brown, Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 275: The history of the study of Jesus in
European thought in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is as much a history of changing
philosophies, theologies, and world views, as it is of growing refinements in historical
techniques.
529
The term is a collective for a number of potential genres, including
Entwicklungsroman and Erziehungsroman. Cf. Franco Moretti, The Way of the World: The
Bildungsroman in European Culture (London: Verso, 1987).

170
of Jesus life, since in the late 19th century many Lives of Jesus had a popular and not merely

academic readership.530 Historians both wittingly and unwittingly obliged to supply that demand.

A related observation has to do with the notion of development in general. As many

surveys of the Quest rightly note, much of 19th-century New Testament study was overly

beholden to an optimism about moral and intellectual progress. The worldview greatly affected

historiography in this period, as critics often approached their subjects with the presupposition

that detailed studies of the past would fit inside other identified trajectories in history.531 In the

study of the historical Jesus, therefore, many questers presumed to find development in the

ministry of Jesus given their initial frame of reference, and the details only confirmed the starting

point. To be sure, the assumption was not something submerged and hidden in the Lives of this

period, but was often explicitly recalled as an argument in support of ones reconstruction.532

530
See Jefferson J. A. Gatrall, The Real and the Sacred: Picturing Jesus in Nineteenth-
Century Fiction (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2014), 5-6 (Novelists reworked
secular biblical scholarship and thus helped disseminate higher criticism into popular culture, a
legacy bequeathed to later fiction and film). Historical Jesus scholars have hardly investigated
this reality. Cf. Clive Marsh, Quests of the Historical Jesus in New Historicist Perspective,
BibInt 5 (1997): 403-37 at 422-26 (though focusing here on more recent studies); Robert D.
Priest, Reading, Writing, and Religion in Nineteenth-Century France: The Popular Reception of
Renans Life of Jesus, JMH 86 (2014): 258-94.
531
Cf. the criticism already in William Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1907), 94-96, who refers approvingly to Schweitzers
similar critique. It is not without consequence for our project that, even before Hases life
appeared, Leonhard Usteri wrote his Entwickelung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs mit Hinsicht
auf die brigen Schriften des Neuen Testamentes (Zrich: s.n., 1824) which, according to
Kmmel (Problems, 95), was the first to analyze the development of Pauls doctrine.
532
As was also the case for theologians in matters of Christology. The thought was that a
developing psychology was a truly human psychology, therefore Christ must have developed
to be fully human. Cf. Isaak August Dorner, Special Doctrines: The Doctrine of Christ in God
and Incarnation, 247: Since development is proper to humanity, and Christ presents true
humanity in an actual human life, a truly human development pertains to him. Since on the other
hand God can be perfectly manifest in Christ only when the whole fullness of the divine Logos
has become this mans own fullness in knowledge and will, and has thus become divine-human,
a development of God-manhood is also necessary. See also Gottfried Thomasius, Christs
171
Theodor Keim, for example, wrote that The fundamental law of historical science, even with

reference to the life of Jesus, is uninterrupted sequence.533 His point was that, in light of this

fact, one must identify the development in the ministry of Jesus to really understand it.534 There

is little here that ought to be resurrected for current Jesus study.

And lastly, many Lives of Jesus were too eager to believe that they could trace cause

and effect in history, encouraged as they were either by the science of their day or some

Romanticist or Hegelian sense of unity and inner connection in history.535 As mentioned above,

historians of early Christianity in the 19th century became increasingly suspicious of the

reliability of their primary sources, and Strauss arguments about myth only intensified this.

But some were still confident in this: every individual episode in the Gospels is intrinsically

related to the others in some manner, so by inferring cause and effect, or by probing inner

Person and Work in God and Incarnation, 65: Christs consciousness works itself out
gradually, in a way similar to that which occurs in all others.
533
Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 1:6.
534
See Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 3:7: History is development. Even Osianders
critique of Hase in Bemerkungen ber die evangelische Geschichte, 147, did not deny the
psychological truism of the idea of successive development of the intellectual life of Jesus. His
point was that the development did not have to proceed through error (durch Irrthum). Cf. a
similar position in Ullmann, Character of Jesus, 410 (development should always be viewed
as a growing whole, its parts dependent on each other; and through great crises, though sudden
and extraordinary changes may take place in the same individual, still the earlier moral condition
will transmit its influence to the later). For similar perspectives, see the discussion in Albert W.
Hitchcock, The Self-Consciousness of Jesus its Relation to the Messianic Hope, I, The Old and
New Testament Student 13 (1891): 209-20.
535
Cf. Brown, Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 169 (on Hase), 207-08, 217 (on
Baur); Howard, Religion and the Rise of Historicism, 69 (De Wette on history as Kette von
Begebenheiten); Baird, From Deism to Tbingen, 392, is right to recognize that the gap
between deism and Tbingen is immense. However, the two prevailing philosophical
perspectives that he believes predominateon the one hand the mechanistic and empirical
Enlightenment worldview, and on the other philosophical Idealism (393)similarly inspired
optimism about recovering the course of Jesus career, just in different ways. See here Fu, Die
Auffassung des Lebens Jesu, 24-5, 45-6, 49.

172
connections, one can probabilistically trace the correct order.536 It became increasingly common

for critics to self-identify as historians rather than chroniclers since the former sought not

merely to record separate events but to identify the underlying unity among them.537 That there

is some truth to this approach cannot be denied, and it builds on a larger interpretive tradition of

making commonsensical solutions to historical conundrums in the Gospels.538 But the

approach has its limits. On the one hand, it is much more useful for identifying where the

chronology is likely wrong than helping the historian reassemble it. In order to reassemble,

critics not only had to treat Jesus as a rationalist who had some intellectual reason for everything

that he did (which, coincidently, was the prevailing approach to studying ancient religion in this

time).539 They also had to assume that they could retrace that rationale. And on the other, some

pericopae may suggest particular backstories (or causes) but not necessarily point to specific

episodes. Ones view of the whole ministry is much more determinative of what, for instance,

preceded Jesus preaching in parables, than anything inherent in the parables themselves. The

536
Cf. Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 38-39 (on Bahrdt and Venturini).The
sense of the unity or organic wholeness of history was crucial for Hase and other historians.
Cf. Magdalena Herbst, Karl von Hase als Kirchenhistoriker (Tbingen: Mohr, 2012), 200-205,
231-32. Herbst also notes the impact of the scientization of historical writing: the form of a
historical presentation could no longer be collections of individual events, but rather must
show context which connects the events (er die Ereignisse verbindende Zusammenhang), the
network of causes and effects (das Geflecht der Ursachen und Folgen), (that) shapes and holds
together the presentation (174). Periodizing history was important for historians to help identify
these connections (192).
537
See Halvor Moxnes, The Mission of Jesus to the Totality of the Jewish Land in
Schleiermachers Life of Jesus, in Byrskog and Hgerland, Mission of Jesus, 25-40 at 28-29.
538
Cf. here Strauss, Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 88; Beyschlag, Leben Jesu, 1:262
(on development mit einem natrlichen Tact).
539
On such an intellectualist approach to religion, as it is known, see Daniel L. Pals,
Max Muller, E. B. Tylor, and the Intellectualist Origins of the Science of Religion,
International Journal of Comparative Religion 1 (1995): 69-83.

173
history of interpretation shows that the Gospels can be assembled and reassembled in many

different ways with little consequence for ones overall portrait of Jesus.

There is more to criticize about 19th-century Lives than the four points above, to be sure.

But these issues are of particular importance for our project and some will be visited again in the

following pages. As the next chapter will argue, later scholarship will repeat some of the

problematic features of these arguments even though the Life of Jesus era stands as an easy

target for problems with historical method and much else.

Our verdict on the 19th-century crisis theory is not entirely negative, however. Just as we

can learn from mistakes, there are some positive things to takeaway. Here are three prospects

going forward.

(i) Since 20th- and 21st-century criticism has largely depended on the work of earlier

scholars to dismiss the old Lives of Jesus, it is significant that much of the early pushback

against a Galilean crisis relied on some dubious assumptions of its own. As an illustration we

note the following comments from the opening of Ecce Homo, perhaps the most significant

English Life of Jesus in the 19th century:540

No other career ever had so much unity; no other biography is so simple, or can so well
afford to dispense with details. Men in general take up scheme after scheme, as
circumstances suggest one or another, and therefore most biographies are compelled to
pass from one subject to another, and to enter into a multitude of minute questions, to
divide the life carefully into periods by chronological landmarks accurately determined,
to trace the gradual development of character and ripening or change of opinions. But
Christ formed one plan and executed it; no important change took place in his mode of
thinking, speaking, or acting; at least the evidence before us does not enable us to trace
any such change.541

540
See Pals, Victorian Lives, 39-50; Stevens, Historical Jesus and the Literary
Imagination, 49.
541
[John Seeley], Ecce Homo: A Survey of the Life and Work of Jesus Christ (Boston:
Roberts Brothers, 1867), 24.

174
Seeleys best point is the qualification at the end that we lack sufficient evidence. But the rest is

a mere assertion of a unity of message and mind in Jesus. This was a common response to any

claim of change or development.542 It is no more plausible, at the outset, that Jesus always had

before him one plan, than is the assumption that his message and attitude changed in response

to new situations.543 At issue here is a not merely one historical conclusion verses another. At

issue is the dilemma of starting points and how they lead, almost unavoidably, to certain end

points. It could well be that Seeleys conclusion was the result of much careful study. But there

is the inherent risk that he, as do all, began his study with certain expectations about what to find.

One predisposed to unity will likely discover unity, just as one predisposed to discontinuity will

likely unearth the same. Instructive here is Robert Alters The Art of Reading Scripture: what

von Rad and other historical critics understood as editorial seams, inconsistencies, and even

errors in the Hebrew Bible, Alter turned into essential features of the literary artistry of the

542
Cf. Osiander, Bemerkungen ber die evangelische Geschichte, 147 (The steady,
deep harmony of his inner life vouches for us also the same of his plan [Die stetige, tiefe,
Harmonie seines innern Lebens verbrgt uns auch die seines Planes]); Ullmann, Character of
Jesus, 402 (the events of Christs life give the impression, that he had the greatest calmness,
clearness of mind, and discretion, united with living, deep enthusiasm); 407 (Never was Jesus
driven out of his own path; it was a quiet path, and always even); Neander, Life of Jesus Christ,
80-81; Heinrich Ewald, Life and Times of Christ (trans. Frederick Smith; vol. 6 of History of
Israel; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1883 [orig. 1843-59]), 200-04, 240-41; Johann Peter
Lange, The Life of the Lord Jesus Christ: A Complete Critical Examination of the Origins,
Contents, and Connection of the Gospels (ed. Marcus Dods; trans. J. E. Ryland; 6 vols.;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1864 [orig. 1844-47]), 2:70-72; Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ,
102.
543
Similarly unconvincing here is Adolf Harnack, who pointed not to Jesus one plan
but the natural language of his speech: unless all appearances are deceptive, no stormy crisis,
no breach with his past lies behind the period of Jesus life that we know. In none of his sayings
or discourses, whether he is threatening and punishing or drawing and calling people to him with
kindness, whether he is speaking of his relation to the Father or to the world, can we discover the
signs of inner revolutions overcome, or the scars of any terrible conflict. Everything seems to
pour from him naturally, as through it could not do otherwise, like a spring from the depths of
the earth, clear and unchecked in its flow. See What is Christianity? (trans. Thomas Bailey
Saunders. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986 [orig. 1900]), 32-33.

175
narrative as a whole.544 Despite his many valuable insights, one fears that Alter, in presuming to

find such artistry, has found it everywhere, just as many 19th-century critics of the crisis found

unity and coherence throughout.545 To be sure, there are problems with all starting points. But

given that all must enter the hermeneutical circle at some point, it is best to begin with an

openness to finding inconsistency in the tradition, and then be explicit about ones criteria for

what qualifies as such. At least in terms of the openness, then, the crisis theory of 19th-century

Lives set a good example.

(ii) It is also instructive to recognize the big picture view on Jesus that the 19th-century

Galilean crisis demanded. To identify a moment, or moments, of crisis in the ministry, one must

situate it/them in the larger context of Jesus career. Crisis proponents did not always do this

effectively. The point is the logic: one cannot talk about major change, or transition, without also

explaining the before and the after. A crisis only makes sense as part of a larger whole.

This panoramic perspective is significant because, for one, it forced critics to seek

broader themes in the tradition in order to periodize the ministry. Instead of treating the Gospels

atomistically, critics had to find motifs that encompass a number of individual pericopae: notes

of success and hints of disappointment, presuppositions of rejection, seemingly optimistic and

pessimistic outlooks, etc. This approach parallels some recent attitudes in the study of Jesus.546

We will revisit this in Chapter 7.

544
Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (Rev. ed.; New York: Basic Books, 2011
[orig. 1981]).
545
Cf. criticism of the crisis theory by H. L. Heubner in an appendix to Reinhards Plan
of the Founder, 287: it would not be fitting for Jesus to change his mind because This is not the
character of a wise mind, perfectly free, clear, and unconstrained.
546
Cf. e.g. Telford, Major Trends and Interpretive Issues, 52, 57; Allison, Constructing
Jesus, 10-30; Bengt Holmberg, Futures for the Jesus Quests, in Handbook for the Study of the
176
 In a similar line of thought, most Lives attempted to deal with as much of the Gospel

tradition as possible (hence their length), and that meant that they had to attend to the larger

consequences of smaller interpretive decisions.547 If ones periodization involved the moving of

a particular batch of texts to one location in the ministry, it affected the placement of others

elsewhere. It is easy to get lost in the speculative details of these Lives (not to make light of such

speculation), but there is an important historical logic at work here that perhaps not even the

practitioners themselves were aware of. In later historical Jesus study, heavily influenced by 20th-

century form criticism, it would become too easily pick and choose from the tradition without

weighing the implications. For instance, it was popular (and still is, in some circles) to argue that

Jesus was a non-eschatological teacher by assigning the eschatological elements of the tradition

to the early church.548 But this tells us nothing about the historical development of these

traditions and from where they might have come. The move provides a pseudo-confidence in

having solved a historical question, but in reality has ignored it. The Lives of Jesus, wrong as

they often were, could not ignore such things. They had to fit into the story somewhere.

For this reason, 19th-century Lives and their crises forced critics to be open and forthright

about their explanation of development or change in the tradition. Later scholarship would be

similarly interested in the discovery of tensions and inconsistencies in the Gospels, but often less

Historical Jesus, 2:887-918 at 906-16; Chris Keith, The Fall of the Quest for an Authentic
Jesus, in Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, 200-05.
547
See J. Estlin Carpenter, The Bible in the Nineteenth Century: Eight Lectures (New
York; Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903), 282 (on Keim).
548
Cf. e.g. Marcus Borg, Jesus: A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Holiness
(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991); Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian
Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988); John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The
Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991); Ron Cameron
and Merrill P. Miller, eds., Redescribing Christian Origins (SBLSymS 28; Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2004).

177
clear about explaining the transition between these polarities. Another example to make the

point: it became common, especially under Bultmanns influence, to claim that the resurrection

experiences were responsible for creating important changes in theology among the followers of

Jesus that were then read into the Gospel tradition.549 But this argument often pointed to

something we know little about to do a good deal of historical legwork. The crisis theory, in

contrast, attempted to name and to explain key transitions often by pointing to specific episodes

in the ministry.550 In so doing the Lives were often overconfident and speculative, to be sure. But

surely later critics could do no better by making similarly bold claims about theological change

but offering less reflection on the historical process behind it.

(iii) Finally, the 19th-century crisis theory assumes some reasonable treatments of certain

episodes and themes in the Gospels. In particular, that the Galilean woes seem to stand at the end

of his Galilean tenure (at least in those three cities) and reflect on poor results; that there are

indeed some commonsensical approaches to the chronological placement of Jesus popularity

and his conflicts with religious leaders; and that some of Jesus utterances (e.g. about this

generation) seem to reflect a context of mixed reception or even rejection. All these points will

receive full attention in the final chapter of this study.

549
See here W. D. Davies, Christian Origins and Judaism (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1962), 8-10.
This is especially true of the later Lives. In Hases Leben the transition point is more
550

assumed than identified, and he spends his time discussing individual pericopae in each period.

178
 4.5. CONCLUSION

This chapter completes our study of antecedents to the idea of a Galilean crisis, and investigates

the logic, as well as the unity and diversity, of its forms in 19th-century research. To summarize

our key findings:

(i) Reimarus work called for more comprehensive treatments of the life of Jesus, and his
own reconstruction modelled the format of a Galilean crisis by periodizing theological
tensions in the tradition and highlighting disappointing experiences;

(ii) in the interval between Reimarus and Karl Hase, critics continued to identify
inconsistencies in Jesus teaching, explored various means of resolving those tensions,
and further popularized the motif of early success/growing opposition in the ministry;

(iii) Hase offered the most intentional periodization of the ministry to date, and his
suggestion that Jesus initial hope to foster moral regeneration among the people, which
failed and led to his theology of the cross, was an attempt to respond to the
interpretive debates of his day;

(iv) later 19th-century Lives of Jesus further developed the crisis idea but were, in
general, more detailed in scope, more interested in Jesus psychological development,
and more grounded in source critical investigations;

(v) the crisis theory had international representation in the late 19th century, and its form
in the Lives of this period (such as in the works of Weizscker, Keim, and Weiss) was
broadly familiar in character but differed in detail;

(vi) Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer made some breaks from prior historical Jesus
study but still recapitulated key elements of a Galilean crisis in their proposals;

(vii) problems with the crisis idea in this period include its overconfident and
speculative nature, false assumptions about messianism and first century Judaism on the
part of its proponents, its subjective foundations in the diagnosis of tensions in the Gospel
tradition, and its clear situatedness in 19th-century intellectual Zeigeist;

(viii) prospects with the crisis idea in this period include its openness to identifying
inconsistencies in Jesus teaching and praxis, its big picture perspective and explicit
commentary on change and development in the Gospel tradition, and its treatment of
certain issues in the Gospels.

179
Aside from our focus on a Galilean crisis, this investigation contributes to the history of the

Quest generally, as it traces the development of historical method and offers a unique angle on

characters both popular and overlooked.

We are now in position to follow the crisis theory into 20th-century scholarship and up to

the present. We will find that, despite larger shifts in historical approach and method, the idea

does not disappear.

180
 CHAPTER 5.0:

THE AFTERLIFE OF THE CRISIS THEORY IN

20TH- TO 21ST-CENTURY CRITICISM

What was once a salient feature of 19th-century Lives quickly became a topic mentioned only

briefly if at all in study of the historical Jesus. Indeed, one searches in vain in most recent

monographs for any discussion of a Galilean crisis. A telling example: the four volume

Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (2009), which presents leading voices on an

incredibly wide range of issues in current discussion, includes not a single essay devoted to the

crisis theory, still less any substantial discussion to issues of development or disappointment in

the ministry.551 One gets the impression that, in the minds of modern historians, the plausibility

of a Galilean crisis perished along with the Life of Jesus genre, such that it no longer deserves

serious consideration.

But this raises two questions. First, why the decline in popularity? And second, is it in

fact true that scholarship has moved beyond the logic and assumptions at play in the construction

of a Galilean crisis?

The purpose of this chapter is to offer responses to both questions and, as Chapter 4, to

conclude with a historical assessment of the discussion that prepares for the final section of the

551
Though note that Rainer Riesner, From the Messianic Teacher to the Gospels of
Jesus Christ, in Holmn and Porter, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 1:405-46 at
423, mentions in passing the Galilean crisis idea approvingly to explain the background of
Jesus esoteric instructions. He is following Mussner here, who will be discussed below.

181
book. We will consider the impact of form criticism and other early 20th-century developments in

the field, a few proposals for a Galilean crisis in the last hundred years of Jesus study, and the

striking similarity of form and argument between the crisis theory and some recent attempts to

stratify Q.

5.1. THE IMPACT OF WREDE AND FORM CRITICISM

New Testament criticism in the early 20th century met with a host of changes, and the important

survey and critique of prior Jesus literature by Albert Schweitzer (1906) was one of them. But, as

shown already, Schweitzers criticism was not fatal to the crisis theory, nor did it end the writing

of Lives of Jesus. For Schweitzers thoroughgoing eschatology would significantly alter the

course of Jesus research, but not the linear and biographical manner in which historians thought

about Jesus.552 A more significant point of transition, it will be argued here, hinged not on any

one reconstruction of Jesus, but rather some new approaches to the Gospels that carried

important implications for Jesus research.

One better appreciates the impact of these changes in New Testament study when one

notes that the 19th-century Quest, at least since Baur and Holtzmann, was essentially a source-

critical Quest.553 That is to say, the search for the historical Jesus revolved around the search for,

and proper historical reading of, the earliest Gospel sources. The assumption was that if one had

See Robinson, New Quest, 34, 194 (Schweitzers emphasis upon the chronological
552

sequence of the Synoptic Gospels is emphatically denied in the quest that has followed upon
Form Criticism).
553
See Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh from
German 5 ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1963 [orig. 1921]), 1; Case, The Life of Jesus, 568;
th

Anderson, Critical Quests of Jesus, 70; Arland J. Hultgren, Form Criticism and Jesus
Research, in Holmn and Porter, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 1:649-71 at
666.

182
the earliest sources, then one had the most reliable sources, which meant that one was close to

the historical Jesus. As mentioned in Chapter 4, many of these 19th-century critics did not regard

these sources as historically reliable in toto; proponents of Markan and Matthean priority alike

recognized the episodic nature of the Gospels and often cut out large blocks that were considered

legendary or apologetic. Still, the modus operandi was that in the earliest source(s) one found a

genuine historical interest in the person of Jesus, as well as a more or less accurate chronology of

the ministry.

Two things changed this source-critical mindset and by implication ideas about a

Galilean crisis. In particular: (i) new perspectives on the Gospels as theological documents in

their own right, and (ii) the advent and dominance of form criticism. These changes led, I wish to

argue here, to a decline in the popularity of the crisis theory, on the one hand, and to a significant

change in its appearance, on the other.

(i) The focus on the theological nature of the Gospels, and particularly the earliest and

supposedly most reliable Gospel, Mark, was well underway before Schweitzer. Scholars have

rightly noted the impact of William Wredes 1901 Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien,

which was discussed (critically) in Schweitzers 1906 survey.554 Of course the general idea that

the Gospels have different theological emphases was hardly novel: Irenaeus and Augustine were

influential in linking the four Evangelists to the four creatures of the divine presence in Rev 4:6-

7, which appropriated their differences as theologically valuable.555 But Wredes claim was not

merely about theological emphasis; his claim, rather, was more diachronic in scope and

concerned the provenance and historical value of Marks traditions. Wrede insisted that the

554
See Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 330-51. Cf. Hoffmann, Les vies de
Jsus, 103-04; Kissinger, Lives of Jesus, 40.
555
See Irenaeus, Haer. 3.11.8; Augustine, Cons. 1.6.9.

183
messianic secret motif in Mark had nothing to do with the historical Jesus: it was rather a cover-

up attempt by the early Church to explain why Jesus was not considered the Messiah before

Easter.556 Hence, for Wrede, Marks Gospel contained historical material, but it was primarily a

theological document which stemmed from the perspective of the post-Easter community.557

Many would disagree with the particulars of Wredes study, but this manner of framing the

theological nature of Mark, in addition to other sources, was hugely influential on later

scholars.558 It is noteworthy in this respect that Schweitzer, writing after Wrede, claimed Jesus

eschatology and the messianic secret idea were Jesus own dogmas, not merely those of the

early Church.559 The kinds of questions posed by Wrede and others created the need for such

arguments.

In regard to the crisis idea, then, the challenge from Wrede was clear: the standard motifs

and theological Tendenzen used to periodize the ministry could have more to do with the

theological views of early Christians than the historical Jesus. The crisis theory, in this

framework, faultily melds pre- and post-Easter traditions. The bold reconstructions of the late

19th century would give way to a new skepticism.

556
See William Wrede, The Messianic Secret (trans. J. C. C. Greig; Greenwood: Attic
Press, 1971 [orig. 1901]), 34-76, 101.
557
Wrede, Messianic Secret, 129 (Mark no longer has a real view of the historical life of
Jesus [italics orig.]).
558
See William Baird, From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann (vol. 2 of History of
New Testament Research; 3 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 144-50. Also influential
here was the work of Julius Wellhausen and Alfred Loisy; see Hoffmann, Les vies de Jsus, 119;
Kissinger, Lives of Jesus, 48; David R. Hall, The Gospel Framework, Fiction or Fact? A Critical
Evaluation of Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu by Karl Ludwig Schmidt (Carlisle: Paternoster,
1998), 146-51.
559
Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 351.

184
 (ii) In addition to the impact of Wrede, the advent of form criticism in New Testament

study cast similar doubts on the Jesus research that typified the late 19th century. And like

Wredes work, the focus of form criticism was not the historical Jesus per se, but it bore

important implications for Jesus study. In particular, the form critics argued, against source

criticism, that the recovery of the earliest sources will not necessarily lead to the historical Jesus.

Rather, between Jesus and the written sources spans a near forty year period of oral transmission

for which we have little direct evidence. Thus, New Testament form criticism sought to

investigate this oral period via the cogent assumption that the literary form of individual

pericopae in the Gospels betray a Sitz im Leben in the post-Easter community.560 This

assumption adapted and reshaped the insight of Hermann Gunkel in Hebrew Bible studies that

communication was governed by genre, and genre was linked to concrete social practices.561 By

careful investigation of the different forms in the Gospels and their genres, then, one could

understand their various uses in the early Christian community.

All of this is well known, of course.562 What is notable are the two different ways that

this change of perspective impacted the crisis theory.

The first concerns the atomization of Gospel study and Jesus research. Form criticism had

no single mode of application, as any comparison of Dibelius and Bultmann clearly shows. But

in regard to the episodic nature of the Gospelsa textual phenomenon we have discussed much

in prior chaptersmost of the early form critics reached similar conclusions. Because these

560
Cf. Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in its Context (JSOTSupp 274; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 287-88 (Dibelius assumed the life situation of a genre can be
deduced from its structure).
561
See Buss, Biblical Form Criticism, 212.
562
Cf. Baird, From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann, 269-85.

185
pericopae so easily functioned as isolated stories (with their own introductions and conclusions),

adhered to different genres, and were freely reorganized by the Evangelists themselves, many

concluded that the pre-written tradition lacked any narrative framework.563 It was argued that the

Evangelists supplied the framework later as they pieced together various pericopae according to

their own theological concerns. The implication for Jesus study was sobering: for those who

accepted some of the basic assumptions of form criticism, the historical reliability of the Gospel

narrative had been demolished. The capstone of this conclusion was the 1919 study by Karl

Ludwig Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. This argued in detail that the majority of the

Markan narrative was created by the Evangelist as a string on which to place the pearls of

select pericopae.564

If, therefore, the form critics had found the narrative framework to be fundamentally

unhistorical, then any reconstruction of Jesus which relied on such chronology or made

significant logical inferences on the basis of it would be doomed to fail.565 Skeptical statements

to such effect became routine.566 The conclusion would prove troublesome for the crisis theory

563
See Julius Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: Reimer,
1905), 3; Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 2-7; R. H. Lightfoot, History and
Interpretation in the Gospels (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935), 16-17; Martin Dibelius,
Jesus (trans. C. B. Hedrick and F. C. Grant; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1949 [orig. 1939]), 12,
16-17.
564
See Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin: Trowitzsch,
1919), 317.
565
See here Schmidt himself, Der Rahmen, 14, where he criticized developmental
Lives of Jesus such as Keims, Holtzmanns, and B. Weisss. He claimed Marks outline was
ein Scheme so gut wie der des John Ev (17). Cf. John Reumann, Lives of Jesus during the
Great Quest for the Historical Jesus, IJT 23 (1974): 33-59 at 42 (form criticism destroyed the
old-style endeavour to put together on a day-by-day basis an account of Jesus life which moved
from event to event).
566
Even before Schmidt, see Khler, So-Called Historical Jesus, 48 (I repeat: we have
no sources for a biography of Jesus of Nazareth which measure up to the standards of
186
because, as noted in Chapter 4, many of its proponents assumed that at least one Gospel

chronology could be mined for historically reliable information (even if it were erroneous in

some matters). Not all reconstructions of a crisis had to assume much on this front, to be sure. As

we have seen, many forms of a Galilean crisis in the 19th century emerged as attempts to order

the ministry, and hence had already recognized and problematized chronological disagreements

among the Evangelists. Some critics, such as Hase, had even concluded that a moment of

transition or rupture was something logically required for a reconstruction of the ministry, rather

than something empirically verifiable in any one chronology. Moreover, the last three chapters

have amply demonstrated that pericopae thought to evince disappointment and imply rejection

were sometimes detached from their narrative frames and rearranged.

In any case, the upshot for the form critically inclined was clear: it was no longer possible

to reconstruct a Galilean crisis with the kind of detail and comprehensiveness that characterized

19th-century research. Instead, historians were thought to be required, given the nature of the

sources, to make limited claims about the ministry of Jesus as informed by the interpretation of

specific pericopae or particular motifs in the Gospels.567 Here historians still could, and would,

contemporary historical science), 49 (the Gospels contain a vast field strewn with the
fragments of various traditions); Wrede, Messianic Secret, 8, 22 (Mark shows he was unaware
of the view of history ascribed to him. His presentation is altogether too confused to enable us to
immediately gain a clear picture), 129-32; Allan Menzies, The Earliest Gospel: A Historical
Study of the Gospel According to Mark (London: Macmillan and Co., 1901), 20-21, 29;
Schmiedel, Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, 24 (ein Mosaik von kleinen
Erzhlungen). After Schmidt, see A. E. J. Rawlinson, St. Mark: with Introduction, Commentary
and Additional Notes (London: Methuen, 1925), xiv; Donald Taggart Rowlingson, The
Continuing Quest of the Historical Jesus, in New Testament Studies: Critical Essays in New
Testament Interpretation, with Special Reference to the Meaning and Worth of Jesus (ed. Edwin
Prince Booth; New York; Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1942), 42-69 at 67-68.
567
Cf. e.g. Dibelius, Jesus, 29: we are obligated therefore to forego chronological order
from the outset, as well as the reconstruction of any development in Jesus, in his success, in his
conflict with his enemiesa biography of Jesus in this sense cannot be written. All we know is
individual incidents, not interconnected events.

187
make common sense assumptions about the chronology of the ministry by inferring backstories

behind particular pericopae (an interpretive move we have seen frequently in this study). But

gone were the days in which historians could assume the chronological reliability of the Gospels

and reconstruct a Galilean crisis on that basis. Hereafter, those who would continue to propose a

crisis in the ministry would either totally ignore the insights of form criticism,568 or respond to

and critique certain aspects of the form critical method and its bearing on historical Jesus

research. As we will see below, the latter was characteristic of several British New Testament

critics of the early to mid 20th century, such as Cecil J. Cadoux and C. H. Dodd.

The second significant impact of form criticism on the crisis idea is more subtle but just

as important for our purposes. It concerns the way in which the form critics read the Gospels as

windows into the history of the early communities of Jesus followers, rather than into the history

of Jesus own ministry.569 In view here is either the general notion that the gathering, shaping,

and preserving of traditions betrays a communal interest, or the more radical notion that the early

Church readily made up stories and sayings about Jesus as new circumstances required. In either

case, focus on the oral transmission of Jesus tradition, and the creative influence of the

community on that tradition, meant the historical reality to which the texts were thought to point

was primarily the Sitz im Leben of the early Church and only secondarily, if at all, the Sitz im

568
As was typical of the Catholic Lives of Jesus, see Case, The Life of Jesus, 562;
idem, Jesus Through the Centuries, 323-28. There is, however, this odd fact: some critics give
lip service to form critical changes in the field, or at least acknowledged the episodic nature of
the tradition, but then proceeded to write a more or less biographical Life of Jesus with little
hesitation. See Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times and Teaching (trans. Herbert
Danby; New York: Macmillan, 1925 [orig. 1922]), 126.
569
See here Robinson, New Quest, 35: the Gospels are primary sources for the history of
the early church, and only secondarily sources for the history of Jesus.

188
Leben Jesu.570 And here is the point: this shift in focus from Jesus to the Church allowed for

much continuity with the 19th-century Quest in terms of the interpretation of certain texts in the

Gospels. For the form critical paradigm was not fundamentally about textual interpretation. For a

19th-century biographer of Jesus, as well as for a 20th-century form critic, Mark 7 reflected a

harsh dispute over matters of law observance. The difference was that, for many a form critic,

the historical referent inspiring the text was some struggle between an early community of Jesus

followers and their Jewish contemporaries, not some event in the life of Jesus. Another example

more relevant for our purposes: Bultmann said of the Galilean woes: we have here a community

formation, since the sayings look back on Jesus activity as something already completed, and

presuppose the failure of the Christian preaching in Capernaum.571 There is nothing here that

we have not seen many times in this study already: a recognition of the retrospective nature of

this text, an inferred backstory of rejection. Examples like this could be multiplied.

Section 5.3 below will revisit this line of inquiry and suggest that later 20th- and 21st-

century research on particular Christian communitiesin particular the so-called Q people

will repeat some forms of the 19th-century crisis theory. For the form-critical underpinnings of Q

scholarship allowed for much continuity with prior Jesus research when it came to the

interpretation of specific texts and treatment of particular motifs.

570
Of course, as mentioned above, not all the form critics were of the same mind.
Dibelius was skeptical of writing a biography of Jesus, but he thought the Synoptics contained a
good deal of historical material (see Jesus, 22). He gave the sayings tradition the benefit of the
doubt: it is proper to speak of non-genuine sayings only where the later circumstances,
conditions, or problems of the already existing Church are clearly presupposed (26; cf. 34).
571
Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 112.

189
 5.2. A GALILEAN CRISIS AFTER FORM CRITICISM

After the advent of form criticism, then, I suggest that the idea of a Galilean crisis essentially

suffered two different fates in 20th- to 21st-century scholarship. Each deserves detailed analysis

given the little attention the history of scholarship has given to this topic.

(i) In Germany, where form criticism and Bultmanns shadow loomed large, it is hard to

find many critical scholars who defend the notion of a Galilean crisis in any detail. This is not

entirely unexpected, given the insights in section 5.1, and it squares with some overstated but not

entirely inaccurate generalizations about the history of the Quest. To be sure, suggestions of a

No-Quest period following the work of Bultmann are misleading, and Dale Allison was right

to reframe the issue in this way: we have not no Quest, but no Biography.572 The fact of

few biographies of Jesusthat is, few presentations of Jesus career in a linear and chronological

schemeincludes the corollary that it was thought difficult if not impossible to reconstruct a key

moment of change in the ministry.

There were still historical studies of Jesus, of course, even by some of the leaders of the

form critical movement: Dibelius, Bultmann, and Schmidt.573 But these projects were devoid of

any substantive chronology, and had little interest in Jesus psychological development or

change of mind. Such would be typical of the next generation of scholars trained in this form

572
Allison, Secularizing Jesus, Resurrecting Jesus, 5. Though this is truer of Germany
than anywhere else. So rightly Robinson (at least until his time), New Quest, 154 (the first Quest
never really ended in America). Cf. Reumann, Lives, 34; Weaver, Historical Jesus in the
Twentieth Century, 73-79, 109-24.
573
Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1929 [orig. 1926]); Karl
Ludwig Schmidt, Jesus, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (6 vols.; Tbingen:
Mohr, 1929), 3:110-51; Dibelius, Jesus.

190
critical tradition,574 such as Ksemann, Bornkamm, Conzelmann, and Robinson.575 These critics

were more confident than Bultmann (though not necessarily Dibelius) in having something to

say about the historical Jesus. But they were convinced that form criticism had demolished any

effort to reconstruct the contours of Jesus career, and so they focused on the nature of his

teachings and the significance of a select few activities, irrespective of chronological placement.

Here study of Jesus had been relegated to the investigation of isolated historical facts, the

pearls of the string.

In addition to atomization, two related issues contributed to the decline of the crisis idea.

On the one hand, the either/or debates over eschatology that characterized the last decades of the

19th century and the first of the 20ththat is, either present or futurewas thought by some to be

a false alternative.576 Indeed, the one-sided realized eschatology of C. H. Dodd was in a way a

reversion to an earlier time, since many had already concluded that the present and future

574
On the so-called Bultmann School, see William Baird, From C. H. Dodd to Hans
Dieter Betz (vol. 3 of History of New Testament Research; 3 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2013), 129-94.
575
Cf. e.g. Gnther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey
with James M. Robinson; New York: Harper & Row, 1960 [orig. 1956]), 13 (the opening
sentence of the book: No one is any longer in the position to write a life of Jesus), 25 (gospel
pericopae do not require explanation in terms of previous happenings. None is directed at later
events for the unfolding of what has gone before), 53 (the best we can do is glean historical
facts to compile the main historically indisputable traits, and to present the rough outlines of
Jesus person and history). Cf. Tatum, Quest of Jesus, 90 (What resulted was a presentation of
Jesus which focused on his words and deeds. Chronology and psychology were of little
interest); Irvin W. Batdorf, Interpreting Jesus since Bultmann: Selected Paradigms and Their
Hermeneutic Matrix, in Society of Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers (ed. Kent Harold
Richards; SBLSPS 23; Chico: Scholars Press, 1985), 187-215 at 188.
576
Surveys of New Testament scholarship sometimes give the impression of a linear
movement here: thoroughgoing eschatology (e.g. Weiss and Schweitzer) realized eschatology
(e.g. Dodd) a mediating present/future Kingdom (e.g. Kmmel). Cf. Mark Saucy, The
Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Dallas: Word, 1997), 8-21. But this is inaccurate.

191
elements in the tradition were adequately attested.577 Thus, there was no need to posit a crisis in

the ministry to explain a transition from one kind of eschatology to another, as some earlier

critics had proposed.578 On the other hand, the form critics claimed more readily than their

forbearers that early Christians were creative producers of sayings and stories about Jesus. So

when tensions in theological outlook or tone were identifiedwhich, for some, included

eschatologythe solution was to ascribe the contrary material to the early Church. In fact,

identifying such discontinuity or dissimilarity between Jesus and the post-Easter community

became one of the primary tools for authenticating Jesus traditions in the mid to late 20th

century.579 This approach was similar to the stratification technique of Reimarus as noted in

Chapter 4, in which contrary traditions in the Gospels found their bridge not in some crisis event

in the life of Jesus, but rather in the subsequent theological developments of his earliest followers

in the post-Easter period.

577
See Willibald Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, or, Historical Account of the
Teaching of Jesus and of Primitive Christianity According to the New Testament Sources (trans.
Neil Buchanan; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1895 [orig. 1891]), 1:51: It has been
supposed, that in order to solve this apparent contradiction in the announcements of Jesus about
the kingdom (e.g. present and future), we must distinguish different stages in His doctrinal
development.But though we do not in any way deny a gradual development.the riddle is not
solved in this way, because it is clear that the kingdom had never appeared in the sense in which
from the beginning it had been expected and finally predicted as future. Both views of the
kingdom, so far as we can see, run side by side through the teaching of Jesus, nay, they are
embraced in one and the same expression. Cf. also Luis Muirhead, The Eschatology of Jesus
(London: Andrew Melrose, 1904); Erich Haupt, Zum Verstndnis der eschatologischen
Aussagen Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1894); Henri Monnier, La
mission historique de Jsus (Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1906); Henry L. Jackson, The
Eschatology of Jesus (London; New York: Macmillan, 1913); Dibelius, Jesus, 69.
578
See here criticism of the crisis theory on these grounds in Werner Georg Kmmel,
Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus (trans. Dorothea M. Barton from
3rd German ed.; 2nd ed.; SBT 23; London: SCM Press, 1961), 141-55.
579
For discussion see Dagmar Winter, Saving the Quest for Authenticity from the
Criterion of Dissimilarity: History and Plausibility, in Keith and Le Donne, Jesus, Criteria, and
the Demise of Authenticity, 115-131.

192
 As we will see below, there was substantive pushback against the form critics, especially

in Britain, and few today would fully endorse the proposals of early form criticism for our

knowledge of Christian origins. But their arguments about the atomized nature of the tradition

have been incredibly influential on later scholarship and contributed to the declining popularity

of the crisis theory up to the present day.580 Because the form critics so convincingly dismissed

any investigation of diachronic progress in the ministry, subsequent Jesus study has been content

with a synchronic discussion of sayings, events, and themes in the Gospels.581 Consequently, the

most important Jesus studies the past thirty to forty years have been organized topically not

biographically. A few recent examples, chosen randomly:

Gerd Theissen and Annette Merzs The Historical Jesus deals with Jesus and his
Social Relationships, Jesus Eschatology, The Miracles of Jesus, The
Parables of Jesus, and so on, each as focused studies;582

James D. G. Dunns Jesus Remembered investigates The Kingdom of God,

Jesus audiences, The Character of Discipleship, Jesus Self-Understanding,
and so on, each as focused studies;583

Maurice Caseys Jesus of Nazareth considers God, Exorcism and Healing,

Ethical Teaching, and so on, each as focused studies.584

580
On the reception of form criticism, see William R. Telford, The Pre-Markan
Tradition in Recent Research, in The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (eds.
Frans van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols.; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2:693-723;
Christopher Tuckett, Form Criticism, in Jesus in Memory: Traditions in Oral and Scribal
Perspectives (eds. Werner H. Kelber and Samuel Byrskog; Baylor: Baylor University Press,
2009), 21-38.
581
See John P. Meier, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (vol. 1 of A Marginal
Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 41-42, 408.
582
Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus.
583
James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historians Account of His Life
584

and Teaching (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2010).

193
The collective assumption is that one can discuss, for instance, the meaning of the kingdom of

God, without much consideration of the course of Jesus ministry. Notions of crisis, change of

mind, or even any difference in meaning due to the changing context of Jesus career, are so far

from recent critics minds that they find no place in the larger argument. The point here is not to

critique but to show how deeply ingrained these form critical assumptions are for current Jesus

research. Predictably, then, not only is a Galilean crisis absent from most reconstructions of

Jesus, but the very conditions necessary for reconstructing such a crisis event are absent, simply

because of the historical approach.

(ii) In the early 20th century to the present the crisis idea has not only been rejected or

ignored, however. It has also been defended, albeit in somewhat different form than in the 19th

century. Although there are several works that could be considered here, our attention is best

focused on four studies that responded to form criticism and yet offered robust defenses of a

Galilean crisis in the ministry. It is, in any case, important to recognize the existence of these

other works, as it is further reason to doubt the No Quest generalization and any notion that the

crisis theory perished with Schweitzers critique.585 But the arguments we find in these four

585
See Isaac Bronson Burgess, The Life of Christ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1908), 109, 142-50; A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Jesus: A Study of Development and
Struggle in the Messiahs Work (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1910), 86, 91-92; .
Mangenot, Les Evangiles Synoptiques (Paris: Letouzey et An, 1911), 170-73, 176-79; W.
Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ (2nd ed.; New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1912 [orig.
1905]), 123-25; R. J. Campbell, The Life of Christ (New York: D. Appleton and Company,
1922), 148, 302-303; Edward Bosworth, The Life and Teachings of Jesus (New York:
Macmillan, 1924); Benjamin W. Bacon, The Story of Jesus and the Beginnings of the Church
(New York; London: Century Co., 1927), 97-98, 102-104; Joseph Warschauer, The Historical
Life of Christ (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 123-66; James Mackinnon, The Historic Jesus
(London; New York: Longmans, 1931); F. C. Burkitt, Jesus Christ: An Historical Outline
(London: Blackie & Son, 1932); Hall Caine, Life of Christ (New York: Doubleday, 1938), 366-
67, 369, 447, 477, 555; H. D. A. Major, The Mission and Message of Jesus: An Exposition of the
Gospels in the Light of Modern Research (New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1938), xxvi, 67-69,
101; S. H. Hooke, The Kingdom of God in the Experience of Jesus (London: Gerald Duckworth
194
studies representin both their similarities and differencesthe most critical and forcefully

argued versions of the crisis theory to emerge in this period.

(a) In 1932, French scholar Maurice Goguel wrote a Life of Jesus in which the crisis idea

featured prominently. Goguels yes, but response to form criticism586 affirmed that the

narrative frames of each Gospel were to some extent artificial creations, and that Mark (the

earliest Gospel, in his view) arranged portions of his narrative thematically rather than in

historical sequence (esp. the conflicts in Mark 2:1-3:6).587 However, for Goguel, this criticism

only went so far. In his view, it was still possible, and even necessary,588 to come to some

knowledge about the course of Jesus career. His response to the form critics on this point

evidently had its foundation in three premises that surface throughout the work: (1) one can still

arrange a rough chronology around secure facts that have more or less fixed positions in the

ministry; (2) the Gospel of Mark has a general plan that is not entirely worthless, and

sometimes John and the other Synoptics can be used to supplement Mark;589 (3) there is a logic

to certain themes and episodes in the Gospels that presupposes a historical chronology.

& Co., 1949), 75, 104; Henry Battenhouse, Christ in the Gospels: An Introduction to his Life and
its Meaning (New York: Ronald Press, 1952), 230-53; Edward W. Bauman, The Life and
Teachings of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 56, 75-83. The continuation was
probably encouraged by the publication of new editions of Renan, Edersheim, Smith, Farrar, and
Fairbairn, among others. Cf. Weaver, Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 72-73.
586
Maurice Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity (trans. Olive Wyon; 2 vols.;
New York: Harper, 1960 [orig. 1932]), 1:18, states that one of his chief goals is to respond to the
form critics who fragmented the Gospels and are agnostic about his life.
587
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:235. See also 1:10, 136, 146, 148 (use
Marks plan is to be used only with great caution).
588
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 1:209.
589
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 1:136, 142-43.

195
 The three fixed points of the public ministry included Jesus move to work independently

of John, the final departure from Galilee, and the passion.590 Goguel thought the precise order of

events between these facts were blurry and impossible to reconstruct in their entirety. But a

rough sketch was possible nonetheless.591 He proposed that Jesus found tremendous success

among the Galileans if still occasional conflicts with some of the Jewish leaders. His evidence

was the alternating reports of success and conflict in the early chapters of Mark, which he

thought was generally reliable (even if the success was exaggerated).592 He further claimed that

Jesus in this period limited his mission to Israel, spoke nothing of himself as the Messiah, and

gave no indications of coming death. His teaching befitted his circumstances and was marked

with pessimism and optimism.593 The Galilean crisis changed this situation, even though

Goguel refused to point to one single event as the crisis itself. He wrote: It is not possible to

fix, even approximately, at what point this crisis in the Galilean ministry occurred. It would be

useless to hazard conjecture on this point.594 His approach instead was to highlight evidence of

increasing opposition to Jesus, as well as the confluence of key themes and episodes in the

synoptics that, in some instances, Johns Gospel corroborated. Particularly important for him

were these: Herod became aware of Jesus activity (Mark 6:14); Jesus fled an attempt to make

590
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 1:210-11.
591
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 1:211: there is a direct relation
between the thought of Jesus and the exterior events of his life.
592
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:332-33:But even when all this
(exaggeration) has been taken into account there are still sufficient integral elements in the story
to make us certain that Jesus exercised an influence over the people which went far beyond
arousing a simple curiosity.
593
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:312.
594
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:310.

196
him king after the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:15);595 there was a collapse of his

influence over the masses (John 6:66);596 the disciples confessed Jesus the Messiah (Mark 8:27-

30). The result of the Galilean crisis, Goguel concluded, was that Jesus was left with a very

small group of loyal and faithful disciples.597 Goguel further argued that Jesus teaching

changed accordingly. He began speaking of division, casting fire on the earth, and the need for

his efficacious death.598

For Goguel, therefore, form criticism challenged the rules of the game, but the game need

not be abandoned. New questions about the reliability of the Gospel chronologies required not a

retreat to skepticism, but simply a different approach. In his view, one could use slightly

different historical means than those of the 19th-century Quest to achieve broadly similar ends. In

this respect Goguel is notably more reserved in making claims about the order of events in the

ministry (even though he is still quite confident), and in general he casts his net wider than

earlier critics. His Galilean crisis is not one event but something of a blurry transition that finds

witness in evidence of various kinds. In any case, the role of these particular episodes and themes

for Goguels crisis has close parallels in many of the Lives of Jesus discussed in Chapter 4.

Moreover, Goguels crisis also attempted to resolve tensions in the tradition, as he positioned

some of Jesus polemical sayings and teachings about his death after the crisis. So there is

much continuity here, both in terms of form and content.

595
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 1:144 (a supreme attempt of Jesus to
win the people. His efforts failed.The failure of the Galilean ministry was complete).
596
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:377. See also 2:364, 369.
597
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:385. Cf. here also Ernest W.
Saunders, Jesus in the Gospels (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 229-32.
598
Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:387-92.

197
 Goguel had close allies in Britain where many shared his skepticism of the form critical

paradigm and its more radical implications for Jesus research. Three other prominent critics also

responded to the German form critics, continued to write about the historical Jesus, and proposed

some Galilean crisis in the ministry.599

(b) C. H. Dodds work on Jesus and the crisis did not appear until late in his career, but

the ideas were already taking shape in his famous 1932 article in Expository Times, The

Framework of the Gospel Narrative.600 Dodd here responded to Schmidts claim that Mark

compiled his narrative from free floating pericopae and created Sammelberichte which tell us

nothing about the historical ministry.601 Dodd, as Goguel, accepted the basic assumption that

the main stuff of the Gospel is reducible to short narrative units.602 But he questioned the

further claim that Marks order was arbitrary. Dodd noted that even Schmidt admitted that the

Passion Narrative and the Day at Capernaum (Mark 1:21-39) represent an original historical

sequence.603 So there were some exceptions. Dodd also thought it likely, both on logical and

evidential grounds, that broad outlines of the ministry were integral to the apostolic preaching.604

He further contended that certain thematic emphases in the narratives may well be historical and

599
Weaver, Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 144, put it nicely: in Britain form
criticism was being absorbed, but it was not merely being swallowed. Cf. R. H. Lightfoot,
Form Criticism and Gospel Study, ExpT 53 (1942): 51-54.
600
C. H. Dodd, The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, ExpT 43 (1931-32): 396-400.
601
Dodd, Framework of the Gospel Narrative, 396.
602
Dodd, Framework of the Gospel Narrative, 396.
603
Dodd, Framework of the Gospel Narrative, 397.
604
Dodd, Framework of the Gospel Narrative, 397, 399. Dodd here references Dibelius
himself, who argued that 1 Cor 11:23-25; 15:1-7; Acts 10:37-41; 13:23-31 evidence the nature of
the oral tradition.

198
preserve an inner connexiongrounded in the facts themselves.605 So, for instance, he thought

it reasonable that Jesus would dwell on his passion when heading to Jerusalem for his final

Passover, and that there was a time in the ministry characterized by the obdurancy of the people

of Galilee. He wrote about the Galilean woes: This utterance belongs to some particular

occasion, and it looks back on a period of unfruitful work in Galilee which is now regarded as

closed.606

Dodds argument was not a plea to return to the 19th-century Quest, but only that one

could justifiably trust the broad lines of Marks framework and be able to trace therein

movement and development.607 His arguments found support in the work of T. W. Manson and

others of his generation.608 Dodd would develop the implications of these ideas in The Founder

of Christianity, which appeared some 40 years later. Here Dodd argued that Jesus, believing

himself to be the Messiah of Israel as described in Isaiahs Servant passages, began his

ministry by proclaiming to Israel the presence of the kingdom of God.609 As he called individuals

to participate in a new eschatological community, he demanded repentance and faith in him and

605
Dodd, Framework of the Gospel Narrative, 398.
606
Dodd, Framework of the Gospel Narrative, 398.
607
Dodd, Framework of the Gospel Narrative, 400.
608
See esp. T. W. Mansons essay Is it Possible to Write a Life of Christ?, ExpT 53
(1941-42): 248-51. He argued in The Teaching of Jesus: Studies in Its Form and Content (2nd
ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967 [orig. 1931]), 13, that Jesus mission fell
into periods around Peters confession, and that before Peters confession Jesus spoke of the
Kingdom coming, but after he spoke of entering the Kingdom (205-06). In his The Servant-
Messiah: A Study in the Public Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1953), 68-71, he endorses the notion of the Galilean spring-time and a crisis after the
feeding of the five thousand. For a review of Mansons contributions to the Quest, see Morna D.
Hooker, T. W. Manson and the Twentieth-century Search for Jesus, BJRL 86 (2004): 77-98.
609
C. H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity (Great Britain: William Collins Sons, 1971),
114, 134.

199
his mission. But despite initial popularity, he was routinely misunderstood to be a quasi-Zealot

leader. For Dodd, opposition to Jesus mission reached a tipping point after the feeding of the

five thousand. This event, which Dodd described as something like a last appeal to the

Galileans to understand and embrace his true purpose, ultimately failed.610 Instead of

embracing Jesus vision for the kingdom, the people tried to make him king by force, which

made it impossible for Jesus to continue his ministry in the same way.611 He did not abandon his

appeal to Israel as a whole, but it now had to be made on different lines.612 Jesus decided that

he must leave Galilee to preach in Jerusalem, and he expected to lose his life doing so.613

(c) Another interesting and largely ignored study is Cecil J. Cadouxs Historic Mission of

Jesus (1941). Cadoux argued that Jesus began his ministry with the expectation that he would be

successful and welcomed as the Messiah. But the failure of the people to accept his message

changed this hope. Of the many arguments that Cadoux made throughout the work, most we

have seen frequently in this study already. He argued, for instance: (1) it would be oddly

fatalistic for Jesus not to expect success, given his belief to be the Messiah of Israel;614 (2) there

are clear statements of optimism in the tradition that likely reflect an early period of the

ministry (e.g. the bridegroom is here [Mark 2:19]; parable of the Sower and abundance [Mark

4:8]; binding the strong man [Mark 3:22-27]; Satan falling from heaven [Luke 10:18]); (3) all the

610
Dodd, Founder of Christianity, 141.
611
Dodd, Founder of Christianity, 143. Dodd calls this event the crisis in Galilee. See
also his discussion in Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1963), 212-22.
612
Dodd, Founder of Christianity, 144.
613
Dodd, Founder of Christianity, 145, 151.
614
Cecil J. Cadoux, The Historic Mission of Jesus (London and Redhill: Lutterworth
Press, 1941), 187.

200
references to the passion occur after Caesarea Philippi;615 (4) there is evidence of growing

opposition in the ministry;616 (5) the Galilean woes and lament over Jerusalem make plain his

disappointment: Why the tears shed and the agonized regretif the whole tragic event was

from the first a foregone conclusion?617

To Cadouxs mind, Jesus had hoped to inaugurate his kingdom on earth not by violence

but by winning over the enemies of Israel by acts of love (to submit meekly for the time being

to servitude and injustice).618 But once this plan was rejected by Israel, Jesus expected a

different outcome: he would be killed as a martyr. Cadoux believed that Jesus used Isa 53 to

make sense of his rejection and impending death, which meant His surrender to death was to

effect in some way what his ministry among men had failed to effect.619 As had Goguel, and

again betraying the influence of the form critics, Cadoux concluded that it was impossible to

know exactly when the significant change of mind occurred. He figured that it was probably a

gradual realization.620

(d) We must also mention here Vincent Taylors Life and Ministry of Jesus. Even more

readily than Goguel (especially), Dodd, or Cadoux, Taylor shared the form critics skepticism of

the Gospel framework. He concluded one essay by claiming that every attempt to write a Life

615
Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 191, admits to two exceptions, but claims they
were misplaced by the Evangelist.
616
Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 251-52.
617
Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 251.
618
Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 173.
619
Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 263.
620
Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 184.

201
of Christ will be a failure.621 But there remained both incentive and reward for trying. Taylor

resembled Goguel in his belief that some points in the ministry were better fixed than others and

could serve as linchpins. Peters confession was one, which Taylor called the watershed of the

whole.622 Marks Gospel contained many gaps in its chronology, but he still regarded the

general sketch to be a convincing summary of the outstanding events in the life of Jesus.623

Taylors proposal was that, despite a generally consistent proclamation about a present-

yet-future kingdom,624 Jesus ministry and message had some twists and turns. Marks conflict

stories in 2:1-3:6 are a pre-Gospel topical compilation and not in historical order, but they

accurately portray the steady increase of opposition to Jesus from the religious leaders.625 Taylor

highlighted Jesus rejection from Nazareth, which further showed the tide of criticism and

hostility to which he was exposed.626 When Jesus sent out the Twelve, he predicted the

imminent coming of the Son of Man and the setting up of the messianic community (Matt

10:23). But as Schweitzer had argued, this hope failed to materialize, which forced Jesus into

621
Vincent Taylor, Is It Possible to Write a Life of Christ?: Some Aspects of the
Modern Problem, ExpT 53 (1941-42): 61-65 at 65. Cf. idem, The Life and Ministry of Jesus
(Nashville: Abingdon, n.d.), 14, 26 (Marks outline is broken).
622
Taylor, Is it Possible to Write a Life of Christ?, 63.
623
Taylor, Life and Ministry of Jesus, 49. The narrative peculiar to Matthew is the least
valuable part of the Synoptic tradition (30). And of the historical value of Johns, there is little
indeed (33).
624
Taylor, Life and Ministry of Jesus, 73. However, Taylor thought that he could detect a
subtle transcendentalizing of the Kingdom throughout the ministry: imminence in Mark 1:15;
presence in Luke 11:20; prayers for the Kingdom to come in Matt 6:10; expectation that some
will not taste death in Mark 9:1; and no one knows the day or hour in Mark 13:32. See esp.
83.
625
Taylor, Life and Ministry of Jesus, 93 (steadily the opposition of the hierarchy to
Jesus grew).
626
Taylor, Life and Ministry of Jesus, 112.

202
a deeper interpretation of the doctrine of the Son of man.627 Jesus found his circumstances

predicted in Isa 53 and determined it necessary to suffer and die.628 Taylor suspected that the use

of Isa 6 to explain the teaching in parables (Mark 4:12), as well as the Galilean woes, may be

from such a late period in the ministry.629 In the end, it was the failure of the Galilean ministry

that drove Jesus to Tyre and then to Caesarea Philippi, where Peters confession emboldened him

to travel to Jerusalem and proclaim his message there.630

To integrate these works into the wider aims of this study, a few summarizing comments

are in order. First, the impact of form criticism is evident on all of these works and their

proposals for a crisis in the ministry. This is most evident in the way that all accept, though to

varying degrees, theories about the atomized nature of the Gospel tradition. Here Goguel was

probably the least accepting, Cadoux the most. But we see in all a reticence, at least in word, to

rely too much on any one Gospel chronology. Even though most followed Marks general

outline and regarded the literary division of Mark at chapters 6-8 (esp. Peters confession) to

have some historical traction, it was greatly toned down in comparison to earlier Lives of Jesus.
627
Taylor, Life and Ministry of Jesus, 117-18. Further: What Jesus expected, and what
he sent forth the Twelve to announce, was the speedy coming of the rule of God and the setting
up of the messianic community of the Son of man. It was this expectation, I think, that he
assured the Twelve that they would not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of
man would be [sic] come (Matt. 10:32) (115).
628
Taylor, Life and Ministry of Jesus, 122. Though Taylor disputed the notion that Jesus
popularity declined. He found no evidence for this. The bigger problem, to Taylors mind, was
that the people did not listen to Jesus message and transform their behavior accordingly: We
are right to take every circumstance into account which may bear upon an undeniable change in
the plans of Jesus at this time; but we go seriously astray unless we place first in importance not
his personal safety, nor counsels of prudence, but the failure of the people of Galilee to respond
to the message and demand of the Kingdom as Jesus preached it (127).
629
Taylor, Life and Ministry of Jesus, 104. On the Galilean woes: it is impossible, with
any conviction, to assign these words to the period before the mission of the Twelve; they
disclose the situation in Galilee as it was seen at some point after that event (121).
630
Taylor, Life and Ministry of Jesus, 139.

203
The most obvious indicator of change on this point is that Goguel and his colleagues found it

necessary to mount further arguments (even if they were general or introductory ones) for their

placement of particular pericopae in the ministry, whereas 19th-century critics such as Keim did

not always offer such explanations.

Secondly, despite important changes in 20th-century historical criticism, we observe in

these works a recycling of by now familiar interpretive moves. In particular, we find very similar

portrayals (or caricatures) of Judaism and messianism that are instrumental in the disappointment

of Jesus hopes; we find the generalization of Jesus having early success and growing opposition

throughout the ministry; we find critics inferring similar backstories to particular pericopae,

especially the Galilean woes and many of the sayings about judgment; we find routine

psychologizations of the gaps between pericopae in the attempt to forge connections among

the movements of Jesus (esp. significant here is John 6:15, 66); and we find that a crisis often

attempts to bridge tensions in the tradition. Most notable here is the way that some of these

critics placed the reflections on and/or anticipations of Jesus deathoften informed by Isa 53

and some atonement theologyafter the crisis and separate from his earlier and more optimistic

ethical teaching about the coming/present kingdom.

Finally, and in a comparable line of thought, these works propose Galilean crises that,

despite their differences, share with one another similar functions for their overall

reconstructions. In particular, the notion of change or transition was helpful for ordering the

ministry of Jesus and finding coherence in the seemingly diverse and potentially contradictory

data in the Gospel tradition. At this point we find a rather striking parallel to the role of the crisis

theory posed by Karl Hase. For Hases periodization of the ministry, as noted in Chapter 4,

responded to Reimarus attempt to stratify Gospel material between the life of Jesus and the life

204
of the early Church. Hase argued, against Reimarus, that the change from a political to a spiritual

conception of the kingdom could have occurred during Jesus own ministry. Hase offered, in

effect, a narratival or biographical harmonization of these different traditions. One could say,

then, that Goguel and his colleagues had their own Reimarus in Bultmann and other radical form

critics who similarly stratified material between the life of Jesus and the life of the early Church.

The upshot of their response, similar to that of Hase, was a narrative rearrangement of the

tradition that included the necessary Sitz im Leben Jesu to accommodate contrariness and/or

different theological emphases. In particular, what Bultmann and others identified as

dissimilarity between Jesus and the early church over the theological significance of his death,

these critics historicized in the ministry of Jesus via a Galilean crisis. There is, therefore, an

interesting parallel between the way that Hases crisis theory responded to Reimarus, and the

way that these 20th-century works responded to form criticism.

Despite the high profile names attached to these four studies of Jesus, few found them

convincing. What would win the day was Jesus research that focused on specific episodes in the

Gospels and/or important themes in the tradition. Dodd and Taylor in particular, the most prolific

of the bunch, would be remembered for other contributions to New Testament study, not for their

ideas about a Galilean crisis.

But the front has not been all quiet since then. A handful of more recent studies have tried

to resurrect the idea, though many of their arguments, as we can now clearly see, are hardly

new. Four in particular are worthy of discussion.631

631
A few additional studies will not be discussed here; see Walter Grundmann, Das
Evangelium nach Matthus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1968), 364-65 (Excursus 9 on
Die Krise des galilischen Wirkens Jesu); Xavier Lon-Dufour, The Gospels and the Jesus of
History (ed. and trans. John McHugh; New York et al.: Desclee, 1968 [1963]), esp. 221 (John
6:15 and antagonism from Herod are important, caused a change in Jesus view); Edward
205
 (a) In 1973, Franz Mussner wrote an important essay with a suggestive title: Gab es eine

galilaische Krise?632 Channeling Keim, and referring to a Galilean springtime, Mussner

ultimately answered in the affirmative. He granted the atomistic nature of the tradition and the

theological motives for the arrangement of Marks Gospel more readily than Goguel and those

discussed above. But he still thought it conspicuous, and not entirely void of historical

significance, that references to Jesus large following reduced after Mark 7.633 He also claimed to

find evidence of success and failure. On the one hand, the announcement of salvation in Mark

1:15, he concluded, assumes that Jesus made an offer to Israel which was connected to the

acceptance of his message.634 On the other, and in tension with this offer, the Galilean woes,635

and other sayings of polemic and judgment in Q, presuppose rejection. The tension must reflect

some change in the external circumstances of Jesus career. Mussner further argued that the

sending of the Twelve was an important transition in the ministry, since upon returning from this

failed mission there was a change in function of the Twelve: they now appeared as the tribes

Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (trans. Hubert Hoskins; New York: Seabury
Press, 1979 [orig. 1974]), 295-96 (some sayings of Jesus in Mark and Q point in much the same
direction of historically concrete experiences of failure), 297 (on John 6:15), 306 (There would
have been an element of play-acting about his commitment to his message of metanoia and the
rule of God, if he had thought and known from the very start that salvation would come only in
consequence of his death. That death only comes in prospect as a result of his preaching and
mode of life, which constituted an offer of salvation, having been rejected), 364; Armand Puig I
Trrech, Jesus: A Biography (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011), esp. 292-303.
632
Franz Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur
Theologie der Synoptiker (ed. Paul Hoffmann; Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder, 1973), 238-52.
633
Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 240-41.
634
Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 242.
635
Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 247 (the woe on Galilean cities dates
after the commissioning of the Twelve, when Jesus ministry in Galilee was largely finished)

206
reunited and a kernel of the coming saved community of the Messiah Jesus.636 Finally, and

similar to some of the studies above, Mussner identified a change in Jesus self conception: Jesus

had a neuen Bewuteinsstufe in his final journey to Jerusalem;637 he began to predict further

rejection; he referred to himself not just as an eschatological prophet of God (as in his initial

activity of proclaiming the kingdom) but as the suffering Messiah. All of this, Mussner claimed,

was probably not an immediate change that can be located chronologically, but was rather a

process.638

(b) Ulrich Luz took a slightly different approach than Mussner in a significant essay on

why Jesus went up to Jerusalem for his final Passover.639 He agreed that Jesus move away

Galilee implied a situation of rejection. Luz inferred this backstory behind several logia

particularly Jesus words of judgment and his comments on hostility and martyrdomwhich he

claimed presuppose a deteriorating confrontation with Israel that was not possible at the

beginning of the ministry.640 Here Luz nodded in approval to the 19th-century idea (as he says)

636
Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 248. The argument that Jesus formed his
disciples into the remnant of Israel on account of his rejection was advanced in a series of studies
by Ferdinand Kattenbusch. See Der Quellort der Kirchenidee, in Festgabe von Fachgenossen
und Freunden A. von Harnack zum siebzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht (Tbingen: Mohr, 1921),
143-72; idem, Der Spruch ber Petrus und die Kirche bei Matthus, TSK 94 (1922): 96-131.
See also Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, 324.
637
Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 249. See also on this Ben Meyer,
Christus Faber: The Master Builder and the House of God (Allison Park: Pickwick, 1992), 33-
36.
638
Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 250.
Ulrich Luz, Warum zog Jesus nach Jerusalem?, in Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen
639

und Perspektiven der gegenwrtigen Forschung (eds. Jens Schrter and Ralph Brucker; Berlin;
New York: de Gruyter, 2002), 409-429.
640
Luz, Warum zog Jesus nach Jerusalem?, 411.

207
that Jesus ministry had zwei kontrastierenden Epochen.641 But Luz further proposed on the

basis of Luke 12:49-53 (e.g. I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already

kindled! I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and what stress I am under until it is

completed! Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No! I tell you, but rather

division! From now on five in one household will be divided) that Jesus interpreted his

rejection (and expected martyrdom) as participation in the eschatological tribulation.642 His

conclusion, then, expressly recalled Albert Schweitzers idea that Jesus left Galilee for Jerusalem

with eine bestimmte Absicht643 and expected to die for many.644

(c) Barry Smiths monograph, Jesus Twofold Teaching about the Kingdom of God

(2009), also deserves mention here. While Mussner and Luz were aware of the parallel between

their arguments and 19th-century Jesus research, Smith believed that his argument for two

periods in the ministry set a new course for Jesus studies (as noted in the Introduction).645

Smiths thesis intended to correct the common practice of grouping all of Jesus sayings

about the kingdom of God together when trying to understand what he meant. Smith contended

that Jesus kingdom teachings need to be separated to reflect the two different contexts in

which he spoke. He labeled an earlier period the non-rejection context, and a later one the

rejection context. In the former, Jesus made a conditional offer to Israel. He saw the kingdom

641
Luz, Warum zog Jesus nach Jerusalem?, 416, 419. He also refers to Mussner.
642
Luz, Warum zog Jesus nach Jerusalem?, 424-25.
643
Luz, Warum zog Jesus nach Jerusalem?, 426.
644
Luz here agrees with Schweitzer that Jesus interpreted his death in light of the coming
messianic woes, but doubts that Jesus thought that he could force the end and save his followers.
645
However, Smith, Jesus Twofold Teaching, 185 note 1, mentions Mussner. For a
similar approach to Smiths, though on a smaller scale, see Saucy, Kingdom of God, 318-39.

208
of God as present in its initial stages,646 evident in his fellowship with sinners and the outcast,

healings, and exorcisms. In the later rejection context, however, Jesus realized that his mission

to Israel had failed. Here Jesus spoke of the temples destruction on account of the disobedience

of this generation, established a new community among his followers, spoke of offering the

kingdom to Gentiles, and began (for the first time) to anticipate his death and its soteriological

significance. Throughout the study Smith betrays his assumptions about the atomistic nature of

the Gospel tradition, since he routinely (and rather easily) readjusts the position of Jesus sayings

and deeds to fit the context that he believes they presuppose.647

(d) We must also mention the recent contributions of the late Eckhard Rau, which have

unfortunately received little notice in English speaking scholarship. In his 2000 monograph

Jesus, Freund von Zllnern und Sndern, Rau argued that the 19th-century Galilean crisis idea

deserves more attention than it has been given.648 One reason was that, in his investigation of

Jesus conflict with the Pharisees, he claimed to identify two kinds of sayings: some were

amiable, while others held them liable for judgment. He thought it plausible that each

presupposed different circumstances and stemmed from different situations in the ministry.649 He

646
Smith, Jesus Twofold Teaching, 108.
647
At one point Smith, Jesus Twofold Teaching, 57, concludes the Zacchaeus story
(Luke 19:1-10) actually occurred in the non-rejection context, which renders Lukes placement
in Jericho right before Passover both entirely misleading and entirely inconsequential for
historicity and interpretation of the episode. This will be considered more below.
648
See Eckhard Rau, Jesus, Freund von Zllnern und Sndern: eine methodenkritische
Untersuchung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 159, where he mentions the Notwendigkeit
einer Neuaufnahme der Frage nach dem Leben Jesu from the 19th century.
649
Rau, Jesus, Freund von Zllnern und Sndern, 163, 165. Cf. idem, Q-Forschung und
Jesusforschung: Versuch eines Bruckenschlags, ETL 84 (2006): 373-403 at 376 (the later
sayings, which hold them responsible to judgment, address them as guilty). Raus view on
conflict with the Pharisees as a key to Jesus rejection in Galilee resembles the earlier arguments
209
was also interested in the crisis idea for methodological reasons. His book challenged what he

called the kriteriologische Modell of Jesus studies that marginalized the role of inference,

imagination, and even the subjectivity of the interpreter in historiography.650 In some cases, he

proposed, historical imagination was required to trace the biographical implications of Jesus

words.651 Rau would see the intuitive and narratival reading strategies explored in prior chapters

to contain a valuable lesson.

Rau further developed these insights in subsequent studies. He intended to present his full

case in a monograph that he was unable to finish. His general case, however, was that several

logia imply that Jesus experienced rejection in Galilee that prompted his departure to Jerusalem

and initiated reflection on his impending death. Rau relied mostly on inferring backstories to the

words of Jesus. In fact, he characterized as Obsolet the 19th-century attempt to reconstruct a

Galilean crisis on the basis of the Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, and yet not obsolete is the

construction of a framework which is at first achieved exclusively from analysis of the words of

Jesus.652 He marshaled the usual evidence. He argued for the authenticity of the Galilean woes,

and assumed the much repeated line that they make no sense at an early point in the Galilean

of Michael Grant on the failure of Jesus; see Jesus: An Historians Review of the Gospels
(New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1977), 111-33.
650
Rau, Jesus, Freund von Zllnern und Sndern, 49, 74-75.
651
Cf. e.g. Rau, Jesus, Freund von Zllnern und Sndern, 161, 163: he criticizes Marius
Reiser and Jrgen Becker who, while giving much attention to Jesus proclamation of judgment,
and even concluding that rejection may have intensified the message, do not fully integrate those
insights into the rest of their work. For Reiser, Rau claims, it is surprising that his presentation
of the judgment material has no further consequences for his overall portrait.
652
Rau, Jesus, Freund von Zllnern und Sndern, 159. See also idem, Q-Forschung und
Jesusforschung, 375, 397.

210
ministry.653 He also focused on the polemic against this generation in Q, arguing that these

statements also go back to Jesus and presuppose eine Zsur in the ministry. 654 Raus interest in

the this generation sayings extended to the profile of Jesus proclamation of judgment in Q,

which he thought also presupposed a situation of rejection.655 Other data significant for the 19th-

century Livessuch as weeping over Jerusalem (Luke 13:34-35 and par.; 19:41-44) and the

Beelzebul controversy (Mark 3:22-27)were also incorporated.656

Rau went beyond his predecessors in one important area. He alleged that both Mark and

Q preserved the crisis in Galilee as a historical event in the sense proposed by Lucian

Holscher: the common reference point of many narratives that can be told about it.657 Here

memory of the event of Jesus rejection became the reference point for narratives in Q and in

Mark in different ways: in Q the rejection is cause to seek new followers in Israel (Q 7:1-10),

653
See Eckhard Rau, Die Ablehnung Jesu durch dieses Geschlecht: Ein tiefgreifendes
Ereignis in der Sicht der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums, ETL 87 (2011): 57-87 at 70
(Die Ablehnung Jesu, auf die dabei direkt oder indirect abgehoben wird, bezieht sich auf das
Gesamtspektrum seines Wirkens), 83 (the woes assume not a onetime event but a process
dessen Verlauf im Einzelnen prinzipiell unzugnglich ist). See also idem, Q-Forschung und
Jesusforschung, 378; Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 241-44.
654
Rau, Q-Forschung und Jesusforschung, 374, also 388; idem, Die Ablehnung Jesu,
59, 85; Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 21, 245-47.
655
Here Rau is deeply indebted to the work of Athanasius Polag, who will be considered
below. Cf. Athanasius Polag, Historische Bemerkungen zum Leben Jesu, Lebendiges Zeugnis
26 (1971): 33-46. Cf. Rau Q-Forschung und Jesusforschung, 374-76, 401; idem, Die
Ablehnung Jesu, 83; Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 82-84, 91-94, 101-104.
656
Cf. e.g. Rau, Q-Forschung und Jesusforschung, 387 (Q 13:34 looks back at Jesus
rejection and presents it in continuity with the entire history of God with Israel; it also provides
einen realistischeren Einblick into the proclamation of Jesus); 391 (on Beelzebul).
See Lucian Holscher, The New Annalistic: A Sketch of a Theory of History, History
657

and Theory 36 (1997): 317-335.

211
and in Mark it is cause to depart Galilee and minister to Gentiles (Mark 7:1-30).658 For Rau, then,

our evidence for Jesus rejection in Galilee is impressionistic and not precise, for our sources

have taken the memory in new directions. Raus pitch melded certain form critical perspectives

(e.g. the affirmation of the atomistic nature of the tradition and skepticism about the reliability of

the Gospel chronology) and postmodern developments in historiography and memory studies.

In addition to these studies, one could mention others which pose isolated reflections

about the framework of his career and even the impact of rejection on his teaching.659 But few

draw from these insights larger conclusions about the course of Jesus Galilean ministry. So we

can end with this: the Galilean crisis idea has not wholly disappeared from historical Jesus

scholarship, even if its proponents are few.

5.3. THE CRISIS THEORY AND THE Q PEOPLE

In light of our interest in reception history and the interpretive moves behind the crisis theory, we

must consider one final and rather striking case: New Testament scholarship has continued to

mirror the crisis idea in the reconstruction of the document Q and the social history of the

people/group that produced it.

It was emphasized above that form criticism contributed to the decline in popularity of

the crisis theory in the 20th century to the present. But it was also adduced that, because form

criticism was not fundamentally a tool for interpretation, the approach allowed for continuity

with 19th-century questers concerning the treatment of certain pericopae and themes in the

658
See Rau, Die Ablehnung Jesu, 59, 83; Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens
Jesu, 258-60. For Jesus, Rau believes, the crisis was cause to leave Galilee and travel to
Jerusalem. He is unsure if Luz is correct in his view that Jesus went to Jerusalem expecting to die
(Die Ablehnung Jesu, 87).
659
These studies will feature into subsequent arguments as necessary.

212
Gospels. In fact, many 20th-century researches noted such parallels and charged that form critics

had replaced the Quest of the historical Jesus with the Quest of the early Christian community.

The point was often made in critique, as though it were disingenuous for skepticism of the Quest

for Jesus to find solace in (an even more speculative) Quest for the community that consecrated

him. T. W. Manson wrote: It is not higher criticism but the higher credulity that boggles at a

verse of Mark and swallows without a qualm pages of pure conjecture about the primitive

Christians psychology and its workings on the pre-literary tradition.660

In any case, form criticism deeply impacted research on Q, and so it is no coincidence, I

submit, that Q studies evidence the same discontinuity and continuity with prior Lives of Jesus

concerning a Galilean crisis. More specifically: Q researchers would shift their interest from Q as

a witness to the historical Jesus to Q as a witness to an early Christian community, but, at the

same time, the reconstruction of the beliefs and social history of that group would often trace the

contours of old biographies of Jesus.661

Again Bultmann looms large here. Earlier 19th-century and even early 20th-century

studies of Q by the likes of Weisse, Holtzmann, Harnack, and even Jlicher had regarded the

study of Q an asset for the Quest of the historical Jesus.662 Unsurprisingly, then, Q was generally

regarded as a collection of sayings of Jesus with little theological shaping or redactional

660
Manson, Is it Possible to Write a Life of Christ?, 249.
661
For some reflections along these lines, see Allison, The Problem of Audience,
Resurrecting Jesus, 27-55 at 54-55 note 75; idem, It Dont Come Easy: A History of
Disillusionment, in Keith and Le Donne, Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, 186-
199 at 190.
662
Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, 1:85-56, 83; H. J. Holtzmann, Die
synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig: Engelmann,
1863), 128; Adolf Jlicher, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (5th ed.; Tbingen: Mohr, 1906
[orig. 1900]), 311-16; Adolf von Harnack, Sprche und Reden Jesu (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,
1907).

213
interference. But this approach and conclusion would bend over time to fit new paradigms,663

including form critical ones. An essay by Bultmann in 1913 bespeaks this development, wherein

he characteristically focused on the community responsible for producing Q rather than the

historical Jesus.664 Bultmann did not attempt to write a social history of the Q people, nor did he

attempt to stratify Qtwo later endeavors that would mirror the crisis theory. But his insights

would contribute to such developments. For instance, Bultmann not only identified theological

tensions in Q, he commented on precisely the same tensions that many late 19th-century questers

had used to periodize the ministry of Jesus. Bultmann spied a troubled relationship between

eschatology and wisdom in Q. He thought eschatology pervaded the document but in some

material eschatology is completely missing, or admonitionsare motivated purely by the idea

of love.665 His explanation was that Q reflected the conflicting and competing theological

commitments of the early Church. Thus his historical solution differed from the Lives of Jesus

not so much in its recognition of the problem (e.g. theological tensions in our sources), but in the

proposed solution to it. For Bultmann, the tensions do not stem from different periods in the life

of Jesus, or different redactional strata in Q, but simply messy ecclesiology after Easter. Also

significant is this: some material in Q, Bultmann thought, was characterized by a tone of

663
Important here: P. Wernle, Die synoptischen Frage (Leipzig; Tbingen: Mohr, 1899),
228-30 (Q was formed according to the catechetical interests of the later Church, and underwent
a Judaising redaction); Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 73-89 (Q was
dependent on Mark and presupposed Marks passion kergyma).
664
Rudolf Bultmann, Was lsst die Spruchquelle uber die Urgemeinde erkennen?,
Oldenburgische Kirchenblatt 19 (1913): 35-37, 41-44. I was unable to access an original copy of
this article. An English translation has been made available by John Kloppenborg: What the
Saying Source Reveals about the Early Church, in The Shape of Q: Signal Essays on the
Sayings Gospel (ed. John Kloppenborg; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 23-35.
665
Bultmann, What the Saying Source Reveals, 28.

214
hostilitysuch as the sending discourse and the Galilean woeswhich gives the impression

of having arisenfrom the sad experiences of resistance.666

After Bultmann, critics would further focus the study of Q around the people who

produced the text and outline more clearly that groups theology, communal identity, and even

social history. Something of a snowball effect ensued: focus on the community(ies) behind Q led

to further study of that group(s)s unique theological profile,667 which led to claims that Q had its

own distinct kerygma (independent of the Pauline kerygma and the canonical Gospels),668 which

led to even more detailed proposals about the social history of the Q people and the development

of their theology. Parallels to the crisis theory sharpened.

A few studies are worth mentioning at this juncture. Helmut Koester, one of Bultmanns

last students, further investigated the tension between wisdom and eschatology in Q that

Bultmann had noted and came to a different explanation. Whereas Bultmann pointed to diversity

in the early Christian kerygma, Koester concluded that the eschatological material in Q

constituted a secondary redaction of an older wisdom book.669 Thus he hypothesized that an

earlier version of Q existed in which the apocalyptic expectation of the Son of Man was

666
Bultmann, What the Saying Source Reveals, 32.
667
Cf. T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949), 39-148 (Q has a
fourfold literary structure, and intends to supplement the passion kerygma with ethical teaching).
668
Cf. esp. Heinz E. Tdt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Dorothea M.
Barton; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965 [orig. 1959]): Q had nothing to do with the
Markan passion kergyma and developed its own distinctive Son of Man Christology. Tdt did
not isolate any redactional stratum/a in Q. Cf. Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (trans.
Bertram Lee Woolf; New York: Charles Scribners Sons, n.d. [orig. 1919]), 243-45.
669
Helmut Koester, Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels, HTR 73 (1980): 105-30 at
113. Koester thought the sayings gospel was the most original genre of the Jesus tradition
and closest to the historical Jesus. See idem, GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of
Diversification in the History of Early Christianity, in Trajectories Through Early Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 114-57 at 135.

215
missing, and in which Jesus radicalized eschatology of the kingdom and his revelation of divine

wisdom in his own words were dominant motifs.670 He supposed that the words about the

coming of the Son of Man and the judgment on this generation in Q stem from post-Easter

Christian prophets who were involved in disputes with their Jewish contemporaries. This

solution is nearer the 19th-century crisis theory, in both form and content, as it breaks down a

tension between wisdom and eschatology and puts one before the other sequentially in time.

Another important study was Dieter Lhrmanns Redaktion der Logienquelle. Lhrmann

is sometimes credited, and not unfairly, with offering the most sophisticated redaction critical

study of Q to date.671 His objective was to investigate the collecting (Sammlung) of earlier

independent traditions by taking note of certain literary signals (seams, grammatical shifts, etc.),

as well as to identify the more intentional redaction (Redaktion) of those materials in the final

form of Q.672 Thus his argument was not about tradition-historical provenance (so he leaves open

the possibility that the judgment material may come from Jesus),673 but rather the literary

compilation of Q. In any case, the conclusion of his investigation was that the most important

redactional motifs are the opposition to Israel and the announcement of judgment.674 That is, in

Lhrmanns estimation, the polemic against this generation and the judgment material

670
Helmut Koester, One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels, Trajectories, 158-204 at
186. Cf. Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International,
1990), 133-71.
671
See Christopher Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 54-57.
672
Dieter Lhrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (WMANT 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 15.
673
Cf. Lhrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, 94.
674
Lhrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, 93, cf. also 24-48, 59-64.

216
constitute a coherent, and posterior, theological framework.675 His criteria for reconstructing this

secondary redaction were not exclusively thematic in nature, but he made use of oft-cited

theological tensions in Q to make his case.

Almost a decade after Lhrmann, Athanasius Polag would also highlight the unique

profile of the judgment material in Q but offer a more historical (rather than literary) explanation

for it. Polag claimed to identify two different manners of speech in Q: one that presupposed a

situation of public proclamation and the announcement of salvation (characterized by promise

and expectation), and another in which the message had been rejected.676 For explanation, Polag

appealed to the historical Jesus. He argued that Jesus message had developed: in the initial state

of offene Verkndigung, Jesus announced the advent of the kingdom with joy, but in the

subsequent state of Ablehnung, he announced coming judgment.677 Polag could not make

sense of these different manners of speech except to suppose concrete historical situations for

them (e.g. die Situation des Sprechenden).678 It is not surprising that both Franz Mussner and

675
Cf. Lhrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, 93 (the Q group had given up hope
for converting Israel and had turned to the Gentiles).
676
Athanasius Polag, Die Christologie der Logienquelle (WMANT 45; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag, 1977), 118 (Einerseits liegt die Situation der offenen
Verkndigung der Heilsbotschaft mit Zusage und Erwartung vor; andererseits mu vorausgesetzt
werden, da die Adressaten in ihrer berwiegenden Mehrheit die Botschaft abgelehnt haben und
der Sprechende damit in einer Ablehnungssituation steht). See in general 118-22.
677
Polag, Christologie der Logienquelle, 195 (die Ablehnung durch das Volk ist bereits
vor dem mit seinem Tod endenden Wirken in Jerusalem ein Tatbestand und modifiziert die
Verkundigung Jesu bedeutend), 198.
678
Polag, Christologie der Logienquelle, 118, although he thought there no
Anhaltspunkt as to the moment of change. The best we can do, he claims, is suppose
Nacheinander.

217
Eckhard Rau (see above) found Polags proposals insightful and further developed them for

historical Jesus studies.679

Aside from Polags historical approach, there have been many other proposals about the

compilation and/or theological characteristics Q which resemble the second period of the

ministry of Jesus in the earlier Lives. And some were bolder than Lhrmann in offering historical

explanations for the cause of this profile: in particular, disappointment generated by rejection of

the Gospel message.680 Especially notable here is John Kloppenborg, whose proposal that Q

evolved in three distinct stages of redaction has been hugely influential. His Q1, which included

Q 6:20-23, 27-49; 9:57-62; 10:2-11, 16; 11:2-4, 9-13; 12:2-7, 11-12; 12:22-31, 33-34; 13:24;

14:26-27, 34-35; 17:33, encompasses material used to create the Galilean spring in earlier

Lives.681 Q2 framed the earlier recension with polemic against this generation, eschatological

utterances, and warnings of coming judgment. As it included texts such as Q 7:1-10, 31-35;

Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 243; Rau, Jesus, Freund von Zllnern
679

und Sndern, 164-65 (he thinks Polag fails in the implementation of the details); idem, Q-
Forschung und Jesusforschung, 375; Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 45-49.
680
Cf. e.g. Paul D. Meyer, The Gentile Mission in Q, JBL 89 (1970): 405-17 (the Q-
community recognized the Gentile mission as legitimate and as the activity of God, but it was
explained as Gods response to Israels impenitence at 405); Paul Hoffmann, Studien zur
Theologie der Logienquelle (NTAbh 8; Mnster, Verlag Aschendorff, 1972), 169 (on the
polemic against this generation and the missionary efforts of the Q-Gruppe, which, unlike
Lhrmann, Hoffmann saw [as well as Q 10:13-15] as a call to conversion at the last hour rather
than a definitive statement of judgment), 288; Richard A. Edwards, A Theology of Q:
Eschatology, Prophecy, and Wisdom (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 148-49; Rudolf
Laufen, Die Doppelberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (BBB 54;
Konigstein; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1980), 278-94; M. Eugene Boring, The Continuing Voice of
Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991), 209-10, 214-16, 223-27.
681
John Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections
(2 ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007 [orig. 1987]), 171-245. Here Significant blocks of Q
nd

are either untouched or only marginally influenced by Conflict and polemic against outsiders,
motifs relating to the coming of the Son of Man and the judgment of the impenitent (171). Cf.
esp. 188 (the beatitudes pronounce blessings on the community).

218
10:13-15; 11:14-26, 29-32, 39-52; 12:51-53, it resembles the post-crisis ministry of Jesus in

earlier work. Q3 incorporated the Baptist traditions at the beginning of the document, as well as

Q 11:42c and 16:17.

Already in Formation of Q, Kloppenborg moved from compositional history to

communal history. Q2 reflected increasingly acrimonious relations between the synagogue and

the community.682 Elsewhere the following comments on passages from Q2 appear:

Polemic against the Pharisees, such as Q 11:47-48, 52, probably reflects scribal
or Pharisaic opposition to the mission of the communityThe Q community and
the Pharisees stand in bitter confrontation.683

The projected audience of the preaching of judgment in Q consists of the

impenitent and the opponents of community preachingOne cannot help getting
the impression that the redactor of this part of Q holds out little hope for Israels
conversion. Original missionary fervor has turned into sectarian polemics.684

The judgment stratum of Q is Shaped by the experience of the rejection of the

preaching of the kingdom, and relies on a deuteronomistic understanding of
history for the interpretation of this experience of failure.685

Q 6:23c (for their fathers did the same things to the prophets) its redactional in
context because it foists upon the beatitudes an otherwise foreign experience of
rejection and opposition, an experience which appears to have been especially
important in the consciousness of the redactor of the speeches characterized by
the motif of the announcement of judgment over this generation.686

The Galilean woes are directed not at the community but at its opponents and
they reflect the experience of the rejection of Qs preachers.687

682
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 147.
683
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 142-43.
684
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 167.
685
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 171.
686
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 190.
687
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 196.

219
 Q 10:21-22, 23-24 offers comfort and legitimation to a community engaged in a
mission which has met with opposition, rejection and persecution. Further: the
preachers have experienced the failure of their preaching among their Jewish co-
religionists.688

The Parable of the Great Supper (Q 14:16-24) turns out to be quite in keeping
with other Q texts, which react with anger and incredulity to Israels rejection of
the preaching of the kingdom.689

Q 13:26-27 not only looks back on the failure of Jesus contemporaries to

respond, but probably also reflects the experience of the Q preachers described in
10:4-10 who understood themselves as representatives of Jesus. The saying
reflects the general lack of success of those preachers.690

Kloppenborg would develop this take on the communal history of the Q-people in subsequent

publications.691 But these basic insights have been, if anything, expanded.692 In Excavating Q, he

argued the group behind Q2 was engaged in debates with the Pharisees and had drawn stark

group boundary lines (including a self-identification as the true Israel) in response to the failure

of others to receive the Gospel. In this proposal, as in some of the 19th-century Lives, the failure

itself is not actually an event described in the text, but is rather an inference, an implied

backstory, that aims to make sense of the assumptions of the texts.

I would further submit that Kloppenborgs stratification of Q mirrors the crisis idea in

some of interpretive decisions used to identify such strata. For Kloppenborg and the earlier

688
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 202, 203.
689
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 230.
690
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 236.
691
Cf. esp. John Kloppenborg, Literary Convention, Self-Evidence and the Social
History of the Q People, in Synoptic Problems: Collected Essays (WUNT 329; Tbingen:
Mohr, 2014), 237-65.
692
After Formation of Q, Kloppenborg has preferred Q people or group to Q
community, since Q community assumes more than we can reasonably know about clear
membership, identity rituals, and the means by which to distinguish its members from other
persons residing in the same locale. See Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings
Gospel (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 170-71.

220
questers had the same dilemma: the strata of Q, and the periods of the ministry of Jesus, have

been mixed up in the final form of the texts. So how does one know what comes from which

strata or period? Kloppenborg developed the approach of Lhrmann to Q which prioritized the

identification of certain literary details and formal structures in the text for this task. The Lives of

Jesus are in another dimension on this point. But it is also true that Kloppenborgs stratification

relied on the identification of thematic tensions in Q, including one between sapiental and

eschatological material.693 He also emphasized changes in tone and implied audience, which

were crucial for the 19th-century questers as well.

To be sure, Kloppenborg has thus far resisted the charge that his stratification of Q rests

upon theological or thematic criteria. He has countered that his approach assumes literary-

critical criteria: particularly the manner in which individual units are juxtaposed, the syntactical

connections between them, and jarring changes in rhetorical perspective.694 It is a

misunderstanding, he has claimed, for critics such as Collins, Horsley, Witherington, and

Allison, to say that his stratification assumes an artificial bifurcation between wisdom and

apocalyptic.695 He wrote in response to John Collins:

693
Kloppenborg also regards the passion kerygma at odds with the soteriology of Q. See
Easter Faith and the Sayings Gospel Q, Synoptic Problems, 179-203.
694
See Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, xvii. Kloppenborg is strongly defended on this
point by his student William E. Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the
Setting of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 5.
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, xix. For these critiques see John J. Collins, Wisdom,
695

Apocalypticism, and Generic Compatibility, in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John

G. Gammie (eds. L. G. Perdue, B. B. Scott, and W. J. Wiseman (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 1993), 165-85; Richard A. Horsley, Wisdom Justified by all her Children: Examining
Allegedly Disparate Traditions in Q, in Society of Biblical Literature 1994 Seminar Papers (ed.
E. H. Lovering; SBLSP 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 736-51; Ben Witherington, Jesus the
Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994); Dale C. Allison, Jr., The
Jesus Tradition in Q (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1997), 4-5.

221
 I did not argue that wisdom was incompatible with apocalyptic or prophecy and expressly
rejected generic purity arguments. The argument for the stratification of Q does not rest
on presumptions about the (in) compatibility of wisdom and apocalypticit depends on
literary not theological factors.696

But the protests seem slightly disingenuous when one looks at his arguments in detail.697 For he

regards the mere presence of prophetic or apocalyptic material as one indication that redaction

has taken place, which cannot be if there were not some presumed tension here. Moreover, at

times his arguments amount to little more than claims about shifts in theology.698 For instance,

on the relation between Q 12:39-59 and 12:22-24, he observed that the differences in tone and

basic motif are immediately apparent, and what is hortatoryand sapiental stands out against

what is aggressive and threateningmarked by warnings of judgment.699 His argument for the

redactional nature of 6:32c is typical: the phrase is the only aspect of the sermon that is

outside the scope of the sapiential idiom, and because it fits poorly with the rest and

reflects a deuteronomistic theology, it should be thought redactional.700 Dennis Ingolfsland has

also made the incisive critique that Kloppenborgs attempt to determine the redactional

696
Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 145-46; also 150-51.
697
Cf. esp. James D. G. Dunn, Q1 as Oral Tradition, Oral Gospel Tradition, 80-108 at
106; Christopher Tuckett, The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus, in From the Sayings to
the Gospels (WUNT 328; Tbingen: Mohr, 2014), 266-89 at 279.
698
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 97.
699
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 149.
700
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 189-90. See also e.g. 166 (where several common
features mean these four blocks belong to the same redactional pattern), 206 (the composite
nature of Q 12:2-12 is immediately evident), 207 (new motifs and interests; abrupt change
in content, tone and form), 211 (all thematic criteria).

222
juxtaposition of independent sayings assumes at the outset that prophetic and sapiental sayings

were originally independent.701

None of this is to downplay the important role that literary criteria play in Kloppenborgs

stratification of Q. No doubt some critics of Kloppenborg have failed to appreciate that. But it is

justified to conclude that the contours of Kloppenborgs first and second strata bear marked

resemblance to our two periods in the ministry of Jesus. They rely on many of the same texts,

they infer similar backstories, and they disassociate presumed theological tensions by a

stratification or periodization technique.

In Kloppenborgs wake numerous studies of Q and the Q people have appeared that also

infer some disappointing experience behind the batch of texts that Kloppenborg called Q2.702

701
See Dennis Ingolfsland, Kloppenborgs Stratification of Q and Its Significance for
Historical Jesus Studies, JETS 46 (2003): 217-32 at 225.
702
Cf. e.g. Heinz Schrmann, Die Redekomposition wider dieses Geschlecht und seine
Fhrung in der Redenquelle (vgl. Mt 23,1-39 par Lk 11,37-54): BestandAkoluthie
Kompositionsformen, SNTSU 11 (1986): 33-81 esp. at 73; R. J. Miller, The Rejection of the
Prophets in Q, JBL 107 (1988): 225-40 at 231 (the pronouncement of final judgment on this
generation presupposes wholesale rejection of the message), 232-33, 239-40; Migaku Sato, Q
und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (WUNT 29;
Tbingen: Mohr, 1988), 44-46, 160, 197-201; Daniel Kosch, Q und Jesus, BZ 36 (1992): 30-58
(the polemic in Q ist mit groter Wahrscheinlichkeit der Niederschlag eines sich verschrfenden
Konfliktes des Trgerkreises der Q-Tradition mit dem brigen Israel); W. Schenk, Die
Verwnschung der Kstenorte Q 10,13-15: Zur Funktion der konkreten Ortsangaben und zur
Lokalisierung von Q, in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism
(ed. Camille Focant; BETL 110; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 477-90; Tuckett, Q
and the History of Early Christianity, 196-207, 322-23, 426; Martin Ebner, Jesusein
Weisheitslehrer: synoptische Weisheitslogien im Traditionsprozess (Herders biblische Studien
15; Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 425 note 94; Dieter Zeller, Jesus, Q und die Zukunft Israels, in
The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (ed. A. Lindemann; BETL 158; Leuven: Leuven
University Press; Sterling: Peeters, 2001), 351-69 esp. at 360, 368; Arnal, Jesus and the Village
Scribes, 167 (deuteronomistic language used to rationalize negative experiences), 177 (on the
Galilean woes), 245-46 (The material in Qs second stratum certainly attests to conflict,
dissension, and rejection but is quite straightforward in its expressions and rationalization of this
phenomenon. Simple failure and consequent polemical rejoinder are sufficient explanations for
this language); Harry T. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (BTS 1; Leuven:
Peeters, 2005), 165 (Q looks back on a failed mission to Israel); Sarah E. Rollens, Framing
223
Moreover, many have taken Kloppenborgs theoriesdespite his protests703and applied them

rather flatfootedly to historical Jesus research, identifying the sapiental Q1 with the historical

Jesus, and the apocalyptic and judgment-ridden Q2 with the early Church.704 Despite the

difference in argument, the logic and the parallel to the crisis theory is quite the same:

periodization harmonizes a theological tension in the tradition as the time of Jesus and the time

of the Church echo, respectively, the first and second periods of the ministry of Jesus in the

Lives. For Burton Mack, John Dominic Crossan, and others, it is again an experience of rejection

that prompted the judgment theology that now appears in Q. Mack has claimed that the Christian

movement in Galilee began with an early period of lan, general social critique, and

experimentation with countercultural behavior before envisioning Jesus a prophet of judgment

on account of opposition and disputes of all kinds.705 And for Stephen Patterson, the judgment

Social Criticism in the Jesus Movement: The Ideological Project in the Sayings Gospel Q
(WUNT 374; Tubingen: Mohr, 2014), 102-03, 163-67 (though she is cautious of using Qs
rhetoric of marginalization as evidence of concrete realities), 189. This is not to say all these
critics concluded the historical Jesus spoke nothing of judgment; the point is that those key texts
that Kloppenborg and others have highlighted reflect some disappointment among the Q people.
703
Cf. esp. John S. Kloppenborg, The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical
Jesus, HTR 89 (1996): 307-44. See also Helmut Koester, Jesus the Victim, JBL 111 (1992):
3-15 at 7.
704
Cf. Crossan, Historical Jesus (though he does not appeal directly to the stratification
model); Leif E. Vaage, The Son of Man Sayings in Q: Stratigraphical Location and
Significance, Semeia 55 (1991): 103-29; James M. Robinson, The Critical Edition of Q and the
Study of Jesus, in Lindemann, Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, 27-52 at 39, 42-43
(Jesus vision of a caring Father who is infinitely forgivingmay have been lost from sight a
generation later), 45; Bernard Brandon Scott, How Did We Get Here?, in Jesus
Reconsidered: Scholarship in the Public Eye (ed. Bernard Brandon Scott; Santa Rosa:
Polebridge, 2007), 47-64 esp. at 60; Douglas E. Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 119-23.
705
Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), 44, also 134-47. Cf. idem, A Myth of Innocence, 53-77;
idem, The Kingdom that Didnt Come: A Social History of the Q Tradents, in Society of
224
sayings represent a moment of frustration in the history of the Q community itself, when it

realized that the wisdom of Jesus was not having as great an impact as it had originally

hoped.706

Of course, there is as much diversity and contestation in Q research as anywhere in New

Testament studies, and we must not give the impression that there is some tidy agreement about

the stratification of Q or the history of the Q people. The takeaway of our discussion is only this:

modern critics are not unique to infer disappointing historical experiences behind several Q

passages, as well as to recognize thematic tensions in this document and resolve them via some

stratigraphic reorganization. Both points, we can now conclude, are rather old arguments in

Gospel research and aim to resolve long standing problems. Here pre-modern Gospel exegesis,

and especially the 19th-century Quest, is nearer current research than often thought.

5.4. THE 20TH- TO 21ST-CENTURY CRISIS THEORY: AN ASSESSMENT

Where do we stand, then, if we turn from this neglected history of scholarship to consider the

value of these studies for our knowledge of the historical Jesus? What is valuable, what is

troublesome, and what merits further attention in the final chapters of this study? This section

will examine three issues, each corresponding to a section above: (i) the purport of the literary

and theological nature of the Gospels and form criticism for the theory of a Galilean crisis; (ii)

the various proposals in the past century of scholarship; (iii) the payoff of Q studies, especially

stratification theories, for our topic.

Biblical Literature 1988 Seminar Papers (ed. D. J. Lull; SBLASP 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1988), 608-35.
706
Stephen J. Patterson, The God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Search for
Meaning (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 172.

225
 (i) It should go without saying that Wredes fundamental insight was right: the Gospels

are not open windows to the past but rather artfully constructed tapestries that demand attention

in their own right. I would submit the following concrete implications for the crisis theory. First,

it is clear that the Evangelists have constructed their narratives so as to show that the story of

Jesus progressed according to the plan of God. From beginning to end, Jesus ministry completed

what it set out to accomplish. The plotline involved no unforeseen twists and turns. The

Evangelists weave this common image with a number of different threads, as we can briefly

summarize:

Mark foreshadows the later handing over of Jesus at the beginning of the
ministry with the handing over of his forerunner, John the Baptist (1:14). Jesus,
who is fully aware of his coming fate, warns his disciples early on that the
bridegroom will be taken away (2:20), even before the Pharisees and Herodians
conspire how to destroy him (3:6). So too, before the passion, Jesus predicts
precisely how the disciples will find a colt for the triumphal entry and a location
to eat the last supper (11:1-6; 14:12-16). Most poignantly, Mark makes the
crucifixion the climax of Jesus messianic ministry as a whole, for here, at the
moment of death, the elusive identity of Jesus is disclosed and recognized by
another human agent (15:39).

Matthew maintains much of Marks presentation on these matters, but intensifies

them. The deepening of the scriptural undertones of Marks narrative shows that
Jesus ministry and death were predicted by the Scriptures (4:14-16; 13:34-35;
21:4-5; 26:31). Jesus very name, according to Matthew, anticipates his
crucifixion (1:21: You will call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from
their sins),707 and there is clear foreshadowing of the passion throughout the
Gospel.708 Jesus acts, in both his ministry and passion, as Isaiahs servant
(12:17-21), and his rejection has clear biblical precedent (e.g. 21:33-44; 23:29-
36).

Luke also has clear predictions of Jesus rejection and death at the outset of the
missionnotably in Simeons words (2:35), and in the rejection at Nazareth

707
On the connection to the crucifixion scene here, see Tucker Ferda, The Soldiers
Inscription and the Angels Word: The Significance of Jesus in Matthews Titulus, NovT 55
(2013): 221-31 at 227-29.
708
See Dale C. Allison, Jr., Foreshadowing the Passion, in Studies in Matthew (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2005), 217-36.

226
 (4:28-29)which further his theme that all transpired according to the foresight
of God. Lukes preponderant use of is apropos here.709 In Luke Jesus weeps
over Jerusalem during the triumphal entrythat is, before he makes his final
appeal to the cityas he prophesies its destruction on account of failure to
recognize the time of visitation (19:41-44). He will later explain to the
distraught Emmaus travelers, who fear the Jerusalem denouement thwarted the
messianic plan of Jesus, that it was in fact necessary for the Messiah to suffer
these things and then enter his glory (24:25-26).

John goes to greater lengths for similar ends. The success of Jesus ministry is not
contingent on the approval of others, for Jesus does not entrust himself to anyone
(2:24-25). Jesus mission, rather, is to deliver Gods divine truth, as he was in
the beginning with God (1:2). Moreover, Jesus is fully aware of his hour and
the time of its arrival (2:4; 12:23; 17:1), and he explains openly how his
crucifixion is a glorifying act (17:5) which will draw all people to himself
(12:32). Jesus also refuses to be distraught at the prospect of death because, he
claims, for this reason I was sent into this world (12:27). Opposition to Jesus
stems not from some failure of pedagogy or strategy on his part, but because
their deeds were evil (3:19).710

These summaries sound familiar because we found similar ideas in Chapter 2 when discussing

certain theological perspectives that de facto excluded any notion of crisis in the ministry.711

Such theologies developed, of course, in sustained conversation with these very texts. Their

proponents cannot be accused of being careless readers.

The upshot for history is indubitably this: given the theological Tendenzen of our source

material, we should expect that, if there were such a thing as a Galilean crisis, it is unlikely that

the Evangelists would have preserved much of it. For the idea of rupture, break, or unforeseen

709
This is not to say that Lukes narrative assumes some deterministic view of history.
See Robert C. Tannehill, Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story, JBL 104 (1985): 69-85; Joel
Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 22-
37.
710
See Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; AB 29; Garden City:
Doubleday, 1966-70), 1:148: the idea (of John 3:19) is that Jesus brings out what a man really is
and the real nature of his life. Further: If there is a twofold reaction to Jesus in John, we must
reemphasize that the reaction is very much dependent on mans own choice, a choice that is
influenced by his way of life, by whether his deeds are wicked or are done in God.
711
See above pp 25-32.

227
change on Jesus part is exactly contrary the general thrust of each Gospel plotline.712 The point

needs to be stressed because, I would submit, 20- to 21st-century advocates of a crisis have not

reckoned seriously enough with it. Our sources purposefully eliminate the very problems in the

Jesus story that the crisis theory has claimed to resolve.

There are traditions in the Gospels that appear to conflict with these Tendenzen. We

noted in Chapter 2 that several earlier exegetes adduced readings of select passages and themes

that diverge from their plotlines (e.g. that Jesus had hoped for what did not come to pass; that he

was disappointed and afraid; that his teachings responded to varied reception). Exegetes

throughout the history of interpretation have routinely taken certain texts to imply a backstory of

rejection or disappointment. Several of these texts will receive close consideration in Chapter 7.

But what we can preliminarily conclude here is that, on the basis of such limited data, the

prospect of determining much about some crisis in Jesus career is rather dismal. And even more

to the point, it needs to be asked if the gist of the Gospels on this mattere.g. that Jesus was

generally consistent in his aims and praxisis not an apologetical spin on the Jesus story but is

rather something that reflects the impact Jesus himself made on his followers.713

712
Lorenz Oberlinner, Todeserwartung und Todesgewiheit Jesu: Zum Problem einer
historischen Begrndung (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980), 103, mentions as a criticism
of the crisis theory the rckschauender Darstellung der Evangelien (smoothed-over
presentation of the Evangelists). A related point: Oberlinner considers it nearly impossible to
find a twofold staging of the ministry in Mark, as one finds nothing of an Umschlag in the
teaching of Jesus (82-83). See also Jacques Schlosser, Jsus de Nazareth (Paris: Agns Vinot
ditions, 2002), 76, on the crisis idea in particular: Mais ce modle, qui apparat dailleurs
moins schmatique dans Mc que ne le laisse penser ma prsentation sommaire, peut difficilement
tre transpos lhistoire. Il nest dcidment plus possible dcrire une vie de Jsus!
713
On impact see Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 240-45.

228
 A related issue: the way that the Evangelists literarily construct characters in their

narratives.714 Characterization is significant for the crisis idea because, quite simply, any

proposal of development or change in the character of Jesus must reckon seriously with literary

conventions of character that may have influenced the Gospels. Proponents of a Galilean crisis,

from the 19th century to the present, have readily supposed the obvious that human character is

influenced by external environment and context. But they have generally failed to ask a more

important question: would the Evangelists, given their literary conventions, have maintained

traditions that Jesus or his audience underwent some change of mind or attitude during the

course of the ministry? The question is similar to that of plotline above: If there were some crisis

in the ministry, would the literary shape of Jesus and other characters in the Gospels even permit

historians to detect it?

The evidence, again, seems to be of a mixed nature.

For one, there is no monolithic concept of character in the ancient world. It was once

common to claim that Greco-Roman historians and biographers thought of character as stable

and unchanging.715 Unlike the modern view, in which malleability and change are norms of

714
The issue of characterization in Gospel research has received increased attention in
recent years, spurred by the popularity of redactional and narrative-critical approaches since the
1970s, as well as the wide acceptance of the view that the genre of the Gospels approximates the
Greco-Roman biography. Burridge, What are the Gospels?, 117, 139-40, 170-72, 222-23. The
study of characterization in Greco-Roman history and biography is well established. Cf. esp. C.
B. R. Pelling, ed., Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1990), 32-59; L. V. Pitcher, Characterization in Ancient Historiography, in A
Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (ed. John Marincola; 2 vols.; Malden; Oxford:
Blackwell, 2007), 1:102-17.
715
See e.g. David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), 28 (on a static conception of the personality); Martin
Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 18
(From the beginning the hero appeared as a rounded personality, and the deeds and events of his
youth illuminated his later destiny. It was not the hero himself, or his character, which changed,
but at best the world around him. He could only become what he always had been).

229
psychological development, ancient thinkers, it has been asserted, considered personality and

abilities fixed. But this view has been challenged in recent years as there are, in fact, clear

examples of developing/changing characters in such histories and biographies,716 as there are

stable characters too. Such diversity leads to the hypothesis that ancient writers shaped their

characters according to the wider needs of their narratives, rather than their narratives according

to the needs of character.717 For instance, in Philostratus Life of Apollonius of Tyana, already

as a boy the sage was a young eagle with wings undeveloped (1.7). He lived in the temple of

Asclepius (1.8), which befits his later activities as an adult (4.45; 6.43), and he is never rattled by

controversy or contention (7.12; 8.4, 6). But it is improbable that he appears in this way because

Philostratus adheres to some norm of characterization. Apollonius character rather advances

Philostratus larger aim to present a noble philosopher and eminent role model for his readers,

one who models Pythagorean virtues and is unmoved by the vicissitudes of life.718

Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not sing in the same tune on the matter. On the one

hand, their characters across the spectrum serve clear theological ends. And these theological

ends, as with the plotlines of the Gospels as noted above, leave little that would require the

hypothesis of a Galilean crisis to explain things. The Jewish leaders are two dimensional

716
Cf. Christopher Gill, The Question of Character-Development: Plutarch and
Tacitus, CQ 33 (1983): 469-87; idem, The Character-Personality Distinction, in
Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature, 1-31; Fred W. Burnett, Characterization
and Reader Construction of Characters in the Gospels, Semeia 63 (1993): 3-28; Burridge, What
are the Gospels?, 178-79; Cornelis Bennema, A Theory of Character in New Testament
Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014).
717
See a similar proposal in David B. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits
of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts (ESEC 2; Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1991), 85, who argues that it
is best not to approach a text with some fixed conception of characterization.
718
It could also be in response to criticism that Apollonius was, according to some, a
sorcerer, a hot-head, a braggart, a money-grubber, a person who looks down on the laws (7.33;
see also 1.2; 7.14; 7.17).

230
opponents of Jesus (though to various degrees, depending on which Gospel) who speak and act

in stereotypical ways.719 So it is difficult to chart any development in their reception of Jesus, if

there was any. The same is true of the fickle crowds who welcome Jesus at one moment, make

demands of him at another, and reject him the next. The crowds have often played an important

role in the reconstruction of a crisis, but it is difficult to divine if their fickleness, or their

enthusiasm for Jesus, are mere literary topoi.720 Finally, Jesus himself in each Gospel is a rather

stable character, as studies have shown in detail the high level of agreement between his words

and his actions. Such indirect characterization narratively communicates his honesty,

reliability, and consistency.721

719
Cf. Wrede, Messianic Secret, 131-32; Anthony Le Donne, The Jewish Leaders, in
Jesus among Friends and Enemies: A Historical and Literary Introduction to Jesus in the
Gospels (eds. Chris Keith and Larry W. Hurtado; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 199-218; Michael
J. Cook, The Distribution of Jewish Leaders in the Synoptic Gospels: Why Wariness is
Warranted, in Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and
Christian Scholarship (eds. Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner; Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2012), 61-80; Sherri Brown, The Priests and Levites: Identity and Politics in the
Search for a Messiah, in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to
Seventy Figures in John (eds. Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmerman;
WUNT 314; Tbingen: Mohr, 2013), 110-15.
720
Cf. Warren Carter, The Crowds in Matthews Gospel, CBQ 55 (1993): 54-67;
Adaoma M. Okorie, The Art of Characterization in the Lukan Narrative: Jesus, the Disciples
and the Populace, R&T 2 (1995): 274-82; Petri Merenlahti, Characters in the Making:
Individuality and Ideology in the Gospels, in Characterization in the Gospels: Reconceiving
Narrative Criticism (eds. David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1999), 49-72; Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Disciples/Crowds/Whoever: Markan Characters and
Readers, in In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Marks Gospel (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2000), 70-99.
721
See David Rhoads and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the
Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 103-16; Tom Thatcher, Jesus, Judas,
and Peter: Character by Contrast in the Fourth Gospel, BSac 153 (1996): 437-39; Mark Allan
Powell, Characterization on the Phraseological Plane in the Gospel of Matthew, in Treasures
New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies (ed. David R. Bauer and Mark A.
Powell; Atlanta: Scholars, 1996), 161-77; Justin R. Howell, The Characterization of Jesus in
Codex W, JECS 14 (2006): 47-75.

231
 On the other hand, the Gospels are not pure fictions, and historical memory has shaped

them in ways that both agree with and diverge from their agendas in characterization. The Jesus

of the Gospels, or at least the Synoptics, belies some literary type. For instance, despite Jesus

confidence and authority during his ministry, despite his clear predictions of his coming passion

and resurrection, he still finds himself at the end, in Gethsemane, questioning it all (Mark 14:32-

39 and par.). Philostratus mold for Apollonius would never allow for such a shape, and in fact

neither did the Gospel of John, as the Fourth Evangelist expressly refashioned this memory.722

Also encouraging for the historian is this: Old Testament typologies inform

characterization in the Gospels, especially of Jesus. Marks Jesus is the secret Son of Man

from Dan. 7, who exercises authority on earth and proclaims the imminence of his kingdom

(Mark 1:14-15, 27; 2:10; 8:27-9:1; 13:26-27; 14:62).723 Matthews Jesus speaks and acts like

Moses (Matt 2:13-18; 4:2; 5:1; 11:29; 14:13-21; 26:28).724 Lukes Jesus assumes the role of

Isaiahs who appears in 40:9, 52:7, and 61:1 (Luke 4:16-21; 4:43; 6:20; 8:1;

9:2; 19:36-44; 24:25-26).725 Thus, the relative stability of the character of Jesus is due in part to

an intertextual conversation with the Old Testament. And such typologies, while certainly

bountiful resources for greater reflection on and elaboration of Jesus identity, were probably not

created ex nihilo. For if one grants with the majority of critics that Jesus engaged the Scriptures

John 12:27 (Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say, Father, save me from this
722

hour? No! It is for this reason that I have come to this hour) likely knows of and reacts to the
tradition of Jesus petition in Gethsemane, which appears in the Synoptics. See also John 18:11:
Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?
723
See Jack Dean Kingsbury, Christology of Marks Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1983).
724
See Dale C. Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1993).
725
Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament
Christology (JSNTSup 12; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987).

232
of Israel to articulate his mission,726 then the various attempts to characterize Jesus in the

Gospels may ultimately derive in some way from the behavior of Jesus himself as he modelled

the heroes of the Bible and tried to contemporize various prophecies.

In all, however, our conclusion to this discussion of characterization is a messy one.

Historians encounter the figure of Jesus and others in the Gospels first and foremost as literary

characters, and the overall aims of the Evangelists leave little evidence of a crisis in the ministry

or at least insufficient material to reconstruct some transition point in any detail. And yet the

characterization practices of the Gospels have also been shaped by early memory. There is room

for further work here in Chapter 6.

In addition to the literary and theological profile of the Gospels, we must also assess the

impact of form criticism on the crisis theory. What are we to make of its influence on the

declining popularity of the crisis idea in the last century of research?

In brief: form criticism has, for good reason, forever dismantled any reconstruction of

Jesus that places great confidence in the chronological reliability of the Gospels. Even Richard

Bauckhams book about the role of eyewitnesses in the preservation of Gospel tradition (e.g. a

book highly critical of many form critical ideas) offered this assessment:

That the individual units of the Synoptic Gospels are close to the oral forms in which they
previously existed and that in oral transmission they were not necessarily linked together
as they are in the Gospels remain, in my opinion, the most significant insights of form
criticism and have not been refuted.727

The evidence in support of this conclusion is just too compelling: Gospel pericopae, especially in

the Synoptics, are rather self-contained, the narrative organization is episodic, and the

Cf. Steve Moyise, Jesus and the Scriptures of Israel, in Holmn and Porter,
726

Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2:1137-68.

727
Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 243. See also Hultgren, Form Criticism and
Jesus Research, 1:670-71.

233
Evangelists easily reorganize one another.728 If Mark found in his sources a relatively fixed

chronology of the ministry, then Matthew and Lukes use of Mark is inexplicable. Readers of

Matthew and Luke were surely aware of Jesus traditions before encountering these later

Gospels,729 and the Evangelists themselves have no qualms about disturbing some precedent

with their chronologies. In fact, the point is strengthened with this observation: Matthew and

Luke not only reorganize Marks episodic narrative, they construct new narrative patterns out of

material they must have known that their sources connected otherwise. In Matthews case, we

can consider two examples in Figure 2:

728
Cf. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 25, 53; E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies,
Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM, 1989), 134-35; Jrgen Becker, Jesus of Nazareth
(trans. James E. Crouch; New York; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998 [orig. 1996]), 20 (information
about Jesus in the oldest layer of the material is shaped in an episodic, conventional way that has
no interest in biographic continuity).
729
Cf. Dunn, Altering the Default Setting, 66, 69, 75.

234
Marks Matthews Matthews
position arrangement reconstruction
pericope a: Jesus in Capernaum Matthew does not retain Mark 1:21- pericope a: healing of the
synagogue (1:21-28) 28) centurions servant (Matt 5:5-13, a
Q text)

transition: and immediately after transition: and after entering into

going out from the synagogue they the house of Peter (
entered the house of Simon ( )


)

pericope b: Jesus heals Peters pericope b: Jesus heals Peters

Matthew moves Mark 1:30-31 to a mother-in-law (8:14-17)
mother-in-law (1:30-31)
position after the Sermon on the
Mount

pericope a: in the country of the Matthew retains, and places it after pericope a: in the country of the
Gerasenes (5:1-20) the calming of the Sea, as in Mark Gadarenes (8:28-34)

transition: When Jesus had crossed transition: and after getting into a
again in the boat to the other side, a boat he crossed the sea and came to
great crowd gathered around him, his own town, and behold some
and he was by the sea, and one of people were carrying a paralyzed
the leaders of the synagogue named man (
Jairus came

)

pericope b: Jairus daughter and Matthew separates the

Jairus/hemorrhaging woman episode pericope b: healing of the paralytic
woman with a hemorrhage (5:22-43) (9:2-8)
from its Markan context and moves
it to a position after the healing of
the paralytic, call of Levi, discussion
about fasting and wineskins (9:1-17)

Figure 2. Matthews rearrangement of Mark

235
The situation is rather baffling, especially if one believes that Matthew assumes the genre of

Greco-Roman biography,730 or writes in the vein of the Old Testament historical narratives,731

and thus has genuine historical interest.732 For according to Matthews new creations we have

several absurdities. Matthew 5:1 to 8:17 is one day, and the next day is 8:18-9:9, which is far too

much activity to be considered realistic. So too the Sabbath stories of 12:1-8 and 9-14 occur in

Matthew on one day.733 There are only so many ways that one can explain the treatment of Mark

here, and none bode well for the chronological reliability of the Gospel tradition as a whole. It

could be that Matthew consciously corrected Mark because he thought a different sequence was

historically preferable. Or it could be that Matthew was simply uninterested in the question of

historical sequence and reordered Mark to fit his own theological scheme (more likely, in my

view).734 In either case, his reordering of Mark could be due to his own conjecture, or due to his

730
Cf. Charles H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); D. Frickenschmidt, Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier
Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzhlkunst (Tbingen: Franke, 1997); Burridge, What are the
Gospels?; Craig S. Keener, Assumptions in Historical-Jesus Research: Using Ancient
Biographies and Disciples Traditioning as a Control, JSHJ 9 (2011): 26-58.
731
See Adela Yarbro Collins, Genre and the Gospels, JR 75 (1995): 239-46; Marius
Reiser, Die Stellung der Evangelien in der antiken Literaturgeschichte, ZNW 90 (1999): 1-27;
Allison, Constructing Jesus, 443-44.
732
See discussion in Robert A. Derrenbacker, Jr., Ancient Compositional Practices and
the Synoptic Problem (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006), 253: Lukes use of Mark and Q
provides few problems in light of the compositional practices of writers in antiquity.Matthew,
on the other hand, provides a unique set of problems for the source critic, particularly one who is
cognizant of the compositional methods of Greco-Roman writers.Matthew rearranges his
sources (particularly Q) and rebuilds them into alternating blocks of narrative and discourse.
Although Derrenbacker sides with the Two Document Hypothesis as the most likely, he admits
that Matthews use of Mark and Q are the most significant set of problems for this theory.
733
Cf. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 351-55.
734
This is not to say, however, that Matthews narrative arrangements should be
considered purely metaphorical. For this language see Marcus Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the
Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2006), 57. For a good analysis see Ulrich Luz, Fictionality and Loyalty to
236
awareness of different narrative presentations in other oral or written sources. It is near

impossible to tell. However, neither scenario encourages confidence in the reliability of the

tradition. For if Matthew readjusts Mark according to his own conjecture, whatever may inspire

it, his accuracy would be pure chance. And if Matthew readjusts Mark according to his

knowledge of other retellings, then we admit that such reorganizations were probably common in

the transmission of Gospel traditions.

Luke is not nearly as drastic. He in general follows Marks order more closely than

Matthew, despite some reorganization (cf. esp. Luke 4:16-30; 5:1-11; 8:19-21; 22:24-27).

However, he also creates more temporal distance between episodes that Mark conjoins, which is

a reconstruction similar in overall historical consequence to that of Matthew if different in

form.735 Figure 3 contains two examples:

Tradition in Matthews Gospel in the Light of Greek Literature, in Studies in Matthew (trans.
Rosemary Selle; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 54-79.
Henry J. Cadburys discussion is still the best: The Style and Literary Method of Luke
735

(HTS 6; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920), 105-10, 115-18.

237
Marks Lukes Lukes
position arrangement reconstruction
pericope a: Jesus heals a leper on a Luke retains Marks general order pericope a: Jesus heals a leper on a
tour of the Galilee (1:40-45) tour of the Galilee (5:12-16)

transition: When he returned to transition: It happened one day

Capernaum after some days, it was while he was teaching (
reported that he was at home. So
many gathered ) that Pharisees and
teachers of the law were sitting
byand some people came carrying
a paralyzed man on a bed
pericope b: healing of the paralytic pericope b: healing of the paralytic
(2:2-12) Luke retains Marks general order
(5:17-27)

pericope a: Jesus teaches in parables Luke retains Marks general order pericope a: Jesus teaches in parables
(4:1-34) (8:4-21)

transition: On that day, when transition: It happened one day

evening had come ( ( ) that
), he said to he got into a boat with his disciples,
them: Let us go across to the other and he said to them: Let us go
side across to the other side

pericope b: calming of the storm pericope b: calming of the storm

Luke retains Marks general order
(4:37-41) (8:23-25)

Figure 3. Lukes rearrangement of Mark

238
The consistent practice probably betrays a distrust of Marks presentation in the details of the

sequence,736 an awareness of other retellings, and/or adherence to historiographical

conventions.737

In sum, then, there is little reason to deviate from the current status quo on this point: the

Gospel chronologies themselves are unstable foundations for further arguments about

development, growing opposition, or any important break or transition in the ministry of Jesus.

(ii) What, then, can be said of the various proposals for some Galilean crisis in the past

century of scholarship?

The studies by Goguel, Dodd, Cadoux, and Taylor all share fundamental assumptions and

conclusions, and so their proposals either stand or fall together. To their benefit, the

appropriation of essential form critical insights lifted the crisis theory as a historical hypothesis

beyond its highly speculative nature in the 19th century (as criticized in Chapter 4).738 Cadoux

here is probably the most helpful. Moreover, each offered more detailed and nuanced discussions

of key motifs and passages in the Gospels that have been thought to imply a backstory of

rejection. Cadoux even maintained that he could reconstruct some change of mind on Jesus part

solely from passages that express disappointment. He wrote:

736
Possibly relevant is Lucian, How to Write History (trans. K. Kilburn, LCL 430), 47:
as to the facts themselves, he [the historian] should not assemble them at random, but only after
much laborious and painstaking investigation. He should for preference be an eyewitness, but, if
not, listen to those who tell the most impartial story (see also 48: let him show shrewdness and
skill in putting together the more credible story).
737
Clare K. Rothschilds discussion of epitomizing rhetoric (e.g.: the style used by
ancient historians to abridge longer accounts in the interest of truth[it] offered an opportunity
to make the impression that details were at hand, but purposely omitted in the interest of truth)
may be helpful here, see Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early
Christian Historiography (WUNT 175; Tbingen: Mohr, 2004), 231-40.
738
See above pp. 164-66.

239
 Now if Jesus spoke in this way, [e.g. weeping over Jerusalem] and meant what he said,
and was not simply indulging in meaningless stage-play or unintelligent fatalism, he was
expressing real and passionate disappointment. No feasible alternative view is
possible.to say that is to say also that Jesus had formerly and for some considerable
time expected confidently that the children of Jerusalem would flock together under him,
and that the city would realize that his ministry was a Divine visitation, and would
eagerly accept his message as essential for her peace.739

Of course much depends here on whether or not such texts reflect the experiences of Jesus. But

the basic insight is surely correct, and has been assumed again and again in the history of

interpretation.

The arguments of Cadoux and the others also deserve fresh appraisal because

contemporary Jesus study would generally agree with some of their starting assumptions. For

instance, Cadoux offered several cogent arguments that Jesus initially hoped to be successful

(e.g. accepted by the people), one of which was this: given Jesus conviction to be a key agent of

Gods end-time scenario, it would be oddly fatalistic for him to suppose at the beginning of his

ministry that he would be rejected and executed.740 This is an important issue that has not left us:

was there any development in Jesus ministry that made his violent end a stark reality? Some

recent critics have in fact argued that Jesus expectation of imminent death arose in response to

new circumstances in his ministry.741 Unlike Cadoux, Dodd, and the others above, however,

739
Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 193.
740
Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 187.
741
Cf. Anton Vgtle,Exegetische Erwgungen ber das Wissen und Selbstbewusstein
Jesu, in Gott in Welt: Festgabe fur Karl Rahner (ed. Herbert Vorgrimler; Freiburg et al.:
Herder, 1964), 608-67 at 624-25, 666 (in general: the urgency with which Jesus pursued the
Umkehr of Israel is fundamentally at odds with the notion of his sacrificial or atoning death; the
latter developed later in response to his rejection); Rudolf Pesch, Das Abendmahl und Jesu
Todesverstndnis (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1978), 103-09; Albert Descamps, Rflexions sur
leschatologie de Jsus, in De la Trah au Messie: tudes dexgse et dhermneutique
bibliques offertes Henri Cazalles pour ses 25 annes denseignement lInstitut Catholique de
Paris (Paris: Descle, 1981), 431-45 at 437, 441; Heinz Schrmann, Jesus, Gestalt und
Geheimnis: gesammelte Beitrge (ed. Klaus Scholtissek; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1994), 157-67
240
these scholars generally have not been as interested in the implications of this insight for our

understanding of the remainder of Jesus career.742

Aside from these prospects, however, all of these 20th-century proposals too easily fall

prey to criticisms also leveled at the 19th-century Lives in Chapter 4. In general, all trust too

much in the chronological reliability of Mark, such that it can be said the impact of form

criticism did not go far enough.743 Vincent Taylor, for example, admitted that the Markan

outline is much less continuous than was formerly supposed, and aimed to use it as a

framework, recognizing that it is a sketch with many gaps.744 But the problem with Mark is not

that it has a less continuous nature than formerly supposed; the problem with Mark is that there

is no reason to trust the order in which he places the events. More to the point, even should we

think the order is generally reliable, we would not be able to fill the chronological gaps

(between juxtaposed pericopae) with any details. That did not prevent these critics from offering

(which discusses Erfolgslosigkeit and Das Migeschick des Basileia-Engagements Jesu).

Even reconstructions of Jesus which highlight the overall consistency of Jesus mission are
typically careful on this point. Note Meyer, Aims of Jesus: Jesus mission throughout was about
the messianic restoration of Israel (202), but the possibility of death became more solidly
impressed throughout the course of his ministry (252), and the course of his destiny as he
envisaged it remained a puzzle even to his disciples (206). He is even more confident that the
notion of Jesus expiatory death arose from Israels refusal in later works: Christus Faber, 34-36.
Bolder is Wrights Jesus and the Victory of God, which clearly implies that death in Jerusalem
was not the result of failure or a change in vision. It was, instead, the inevitable result of his
kingdom-inaugurating career (466), the moment at which Jesus intended to draw matters to a
head in one particular visit to Jerusalem (474), and was consistent with the inner logic of his
entire kingdom-praxis (594).
742
See here Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus,
and Atonement Theory (Waco: Baylor, 2005), 48, who at one point asks (but never offers an
answer) to this question: at what point in his life did that (he would die) occur to him?
743
For an incisive critique of Dodds renowned ExpT article, which itself has become
famous, cf. D. E. Nineham, The Order of Events in St. Marks Gospel: An Examination of Dr.
Dodds Hypothesis, in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (ed. D. E.
Nineham; Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), 223-39.
744
Taylor, Life and Ministry of Jesus, 49.

241
many imaginative scenarios to fill these gaps, and their strained connections between

pericopaeoften in attempt to uncover the motives of Jesus movements throughout the

Galileeresemble 19th-century psychologizations. Taylor at one point even suggested that Jesus

was snappy with the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark 7:25-30 and par.) because of the mental

torment of grappling with the failure of his Galilean mission!745

There are other issues as well. Stereotypical descriptions of Judaism and messianism still

abound and often fuel rising tension that lead to a Galilean crisis (e.g. in Dodds case, Jesus

anti-nationalistic kingdom was rejected).746 The reconstructions at times betray an underlying

attempt to maintain the historicity of as much of the Synoptic tradition as possible, which can

make them appear as quasi-harmonies of the Gospels. And finally, one has to conclude that all

four remain, despite improving the historiography of the 19th-century Quest, still too confident in

their abilities to reconstruct the ups and downs of Jesus career. We cannot know as much as they

claim to know.

In many respects the proposals by Mussner, Luz, Smith, and Rau avoid these criticisms.

In particular, their Galilean crises depend even less on the chronology of any one Gospel (if at

all), and more on the assumed backstories of individual sayings and units of material.747 These

critics also went beyond their predecessors in approaching the crisis idea through Jesus Jewish

745
Taylor, Life and Ministry of Jesus, 143. For a similar criticism of Goguel, see E. F.
Scott, Recent Lives of Jesus, HTR 27 (1934): 1-31 at 20-24. On Taylor and Dodd, see Tatum,
Quest of Jesus, 85-86.
746
Dodd, Founder of Christianity, 100, 114, 148-49.
747
Rau, Jesus, Freund von Zllnern und Sndern, 159, even made this point plain:
Obsolet geworden ist die Orientierung am Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, wie ihn die Evangelien
bieten, nicht aber die Konstruktion eines Rahmens, der zunchst ausschlielich aus der Analyse
der Worte Jesu zu gewinnen ist. Cf. Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 234-35;
also Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 239.

242
milieu. Ulrich Luz is especially noteworthy here. Whereas previous proposals relied almost

entirely on the Gospels themselves to make their case, Luz proposed that certain Jewish

expectations about the end-time make a crisis scenario plausible. Luz offered an updated version

of Schweitzers proposal that Jesus believed he and his contemporaries were about to suffer the

messianic woes.748 For Luz, Jesus interpreted his rejection in Galilee as a symptom of the final

time of tribulation, which precipitated his departure from Galilee and journey to Jerusalem in

expectation of death. The proposal intrigues not least because a few other prominent critics have

argued that some of Jesus sayings and deeds assume the onset of the final tribulation.749

Despite these improvements, however, a number of questions and doubts remain. In

Mussners case, the proclamation of the kingdom, on the one hand, and the evidence of rejection,

on the other, he termed a binary.750 But, as mentioned in Chapter 4, the posing of theological

contrasts can too easily ignore the incompleteness of our knowledge and the paucity of our

evidence.751 How one knows what constitute binaries in the tradition deserves more careful

consideration. Moreover, important for Mussners crisis was the supposition that the Galilean

Luz, Warum zog Jesus nach Jerusalem?, 424-5. Though see already Max
748

Maurenbrecher, Von Nazareth nach Golgatha: Untersuchungen ber die welt geschichtlichen
Zusammenhnge des Urchristentums (Berlin: Schneberg, 1909), 226-36.
749
Cf. Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (trans.
John Bowden; New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1971 [orig. 1971]), 127-31, 241-44; Richard
H. Hiers, The Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God: Present and Future in the Message and
Ministry of Jesus (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1973), 25-26; Dale C. Allison, Jr.,
Q 12:51-53 and Mark 9:11-13 and the Messianic Woes, in Authenticating the Words of Jesus
(eds. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2002), 289-310; Brant Pitre,
Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the
Atonement (WUNT 204; Tbingen: Mohr; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 163-76, 180-86, 212-16;
McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 107-115, 118-19.
750
Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 243.
751
For criticism of Mussner on the notion of a period of offer (Angebot) and a period of
rejection (Ablehnung), see Oberlinner, Todeserwartung und Todesgewiheit Jesu, 79-80, 93-94,
96. Oberlinner also considers it absurd to think there an end to the period of offer (103).

243
mission of the Twelve was a failure, and that upon their return they became a kernel of the

coming saved community of the messiah Jesus.752 But it must be admitted that we have no

evidence in the Gospels for either point. In fact, his proposal is contrary the witness of Mark and

Luke, who indicate (Mark 6:30-31) or expressly claim (Luke 10:17-20 [on the mission of the

Seventy]; see 9:10 [the Twelve]) that it was successful. Of course Mussner may still be correct,

and it takes little imagination to entertain the possibility that Mark and Luke adapted the sending

tradition to fit their own optimistic vision for the spread of the Gospel in the post-Easter period.

But in the end, Mussners attempt to harmonize the Markan tradition of the sending with the

woes over Galilean cities in Q assumes that the temporal situation of these episodes, and their

inner connection, are clearer than is actually the case.753

A similar critique applies to Raus various studies on the topic. There is nothing

particularly objectionable at this point in his treatment of the this generation sayings, the

judgment material in Q, or even the controversies with the Pharisees. The question is whether or

not Rau can successfully string all the important data together at the end of the Galilean ministry

to explain Jesus departure for Jerusalem, his behavior when there, and his anticipation of death.

For Rau argues that all three are interrelated and presuppose the failure of his Galilean ministry.

But one wonders. There are numerous ways that one can, as have some, reasonably explain

Jesus provocative acts in Jerusalem that do not require he was previously rejected in the

752
Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 248. See here Anton Vgtle, Der
Einzelne und die Gemeinschaft in der Stufenfolge der Christusoffenbarung, in Sentire
Ecclesiam: Das Bewutsein von der Kirche als gestaltende Kraft der Frmmigkeit (ed. Jean
Danilou et al.; Freiburg: Herder, 1961), 50-91 at 73 (the separation of the twelve from the rest
of the disciples occurred after the failed Galilean mission of the disciples).
753
It should not be missed, however, that Mussner regarded his conclusions as
hypothetical and fragmentary (Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 250).

244
Galilee.754 A similar criticism would apply for Luzs thesis as well. That there was an an

objectively meaningful break (eine sachlich belangvolle Zsur) in the Galilean ministry is not

evident, and it seems an overstatement to claim that Jesus activities in Jerusalem stand as ein

starkes Moment von Diskontinuitt against his earlier work.755 Moreover, Raus argument that

the rejection and departure of Jesus from Galilee can be known as an event in the sense posed

by Lucian Holscher (the common reference point of many narratives that can be told about

it)756 may be too subjective to carry much weight. If in Q the crisis event it is cause for

seeking new followers in Israel, while Mark makes it cause to depart Galilee and minister to

Gentiles, it is not apparent that we remain in position to glean the historical truth of the matter,

which was actually something different entirely. Can Mark and Q in this case actually be

considered evidence for the claim that rejection in Galilee caused Jesus to depart for Jerusalem?

For Mussner, Rau, and to lesser degree Luz, therefore, a number of reasonable insights

about specific texts and themes are sometimes stretched to make too expansive conclusions.

Barry Smiths monograph is no different, but his argument also highlights one final and

related issue. His proposal for the existence of two different contexts in Jesus ministry (the

non-rejection context and the later rejection context, respectively) assumes that the

presumed context behind each event or logion is rather straightforward. But it is not. The

reader picks up his book to find the kingdom sayings already reorganized into their respective

contexts while the logic for such reorganization, and the criteria by which Smith came to these

754
Cf. Tan, Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus, for a survey and proposal (e.g. that
Jesus hoped God to restore Jerusalem to be the city of Gods kingship, in accordance with the
Zion theology of the Old Testament prophets). Cf. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 790-96.
755
Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 21.
756
See note 657 above.

245
determinations, are never disclosed. For him, it seems, there is no need to elaborate.757 Smith will

often discuss a particular logion at length without ever explaining why the saying best fits a

non-rejection or rejection context, or how the saying in question coheres with the other

teachings that Smith has grouped in this context. For example, Smith places both Jesus

teachings about becoming like a little child (Mark 9:33-37; Matt 18:1-5) and Jesus association

with sinners in the non-rejection context. He discusses each in turn under separate

subheadings.758 Not once does he explain why these require a non rejection context, oran

equally important issuethe nature of the connection (be it thematic or temporal) between the

sayings and the association with sinners. What disqualifies the hypothesis that Jesus talked about

becoming a little child and associated with sinners after he had been rejected by the religiously

well-to-do, as several of his parables may presuppose? Such a simple question addresses what

should be the most fundamental matter of a book of his scope, and Smith offers no guidance

here.

The problem is that Smith underestimates what Dale Allison has called in one essay The

Problem of Audience: given that the Gospels have tried to make the words of Jesus relevant to

as many as possible, our utmost endeavors can produce little more than modest speculations

about the original audience(s).759 Changing the context of a saying can change its meaning

757
Of all the proponents of a crisis considered in this chapter, Smith is by far least
concerned with the frameworks of the Gospels. The narrative shape of the tradition plays no role
in his treatment of particular sayings and deeds, and he never discusses the rough chronology of
the ministry and the nature of the pre-written Gospel tradition.
758
Smith, Jesus Twofold Teaching, 42-45.
759
Allison, Problem of Audience, Resurrecting Jesus, 44. Manson, Teaching of Jesus,
320-27, was too optimistic in his ability to identify which of Jesus words were directed to the
disciples, the general public, and the religious leaders, respectively.

246
entirely.760 To be sure, some logia will be more transparent than others, but nothing is so

straightforward to preclude the need for further arguments about situation in the ministry. And

even if one can reasonably infer the backstory of certain episodes in the Gospels, failure is likely

to follow an effort such as Smiths to reorganize nearly every piece of the Synoptic tradition to

its respective Sitz im Leben Jesu.761

Despite these potential downsides, however, the 20th and 21st-century proposals leave

important issues on the table. Several sayings in the tradition almost unavoidably imply that

frustration, disappointment, and rejection lie in the background. If any of these sayings go back

to Jesus, or represent the kinds of things he said in the Galilee, then we have an important aspect

of his ministry that has been passed over by the plotlines of the canonical Gospels. This deserves

a full discussion, as it is so strangely overlooked by contemporary historical Jesus scholarship.

But we can also surmise that, in light of the above proposals, attempts to make larger claims

about the course of Jesus public career on the basis of these individual units and motifs is a task

760
See John S. Kloppenborg, Memory, Performance, and the Sayings of Jesus, JSHJ 10
(2012): 97-132 (the placement of sayings with near identical lexical form in different contexts
can change the meaning almost entirely). Cf. the argument of Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of
Jesus (trans. S. H. Hooke; 2nd ed.; New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1972 [orig. 1958]), 33-
42, that the Gospels change parables that Jesus originally addressed to opponents into lessons for
believers.
761
It becomes more and more apparent to the reader of Smiths book that his twofold
teaching proposal functions to harmonize seemingly disparate sayings of Jesus and also to
explain away potentially troublesome sayings. He challenges the historicity of nothing. For
instance, in Smiths view, Mark 9:1 (there are some standing here who will not taste death until
they see that the kingdom of God has come with power) stems from the non-rejection context
and was a conditional prophecy (as was Matt 10:23), assuming the people of Israel would accept
him. Because the context changed as Jesus was rejected, then, it is not really a failed prophecy
after all. See Jesus Twofold Teaching, 168-73 at 172 (italics mine): Jesus holds that so long as
it is not rejected, the Kingdom of God will continue to advance until it reached its
culmination.The rejection of the message and its messenger, however, would render this
conditional statement untrue.

247
fraught with difficulty.762 If it is possible to attain some larger sketch of Jesus ministry from

such passages, then one must avoid what is too trusting and speculative in the above proposals.

The method and assumptions behind such a task, so rarely discussed, deserve their own

treatment.

(iii) Method is also the crux when we consider, as the final topic of this section, the

import of Q studies and its stratification theories. The assumption here is not that the conclusions

of Q scholarship are readily transferrable to Jesus study, as though the stratification of Q had

direct bearing on the life of Jesus. As mentioned above, Kloppenborg himself has protested one

spinoff of his work that has essentially applied the Q1 material to the historical Jesus and

everything else to the early Church.763 Kloppenborg and a host of others have rightly reminded

us that, regardless of ones conclusions about stratification, material found in any of Qs strata

may well represent the historical Jesus, just as there is surely some dominical material in the

Gospel of John.764 Our question rather is this: given the striking parallels between the approach,

762
Here the caution of John Meier in his response to Hollenbach (discussed below) is
apropos in Mentor, Message, and Miracles (vol. 2 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical
Jesus; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 125: it stands to reason that Jesus the adult developed in
his religious thought and practice. But again, what exact course that development took cannot be
known a priori, and the Gospels give us almost no data by which we might plot its course. With a
few possible exceptions (e.g., Jesus having to face the possibility of a violent death), the Gospel
material cannot be assigned to early or late stages in his career, and appeals to the general
principle that Jesus must have developed do not change our state of ignorance about particulars.
Cf. also Oberlinner, Todeserwartung und Todesgewiheit Jesu, 104-106.
763
See Kloppenborg, Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest, 307-44.
764
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 245; idem, Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest, 337
(though Kloppenborg is still cautious: [one must exercise] great caution in attributing to the
historical Jesus formulations that appear in the context of redactional expansions of Mark and
Q). Cf. Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology, JBL 113 (1994): 651-68
at 662-63; Christopher Tuckett, Q and the Historical Jesus, From the Sayings to the Gospels,
447-74 at 455-59.

248
method, and conclusions of the stratification of Q and the crisis idea, what do the prospects and

problems of Q research lead us to expect about our own topic?

On the positive side, Q studies again confirm the observations above: several of the

judgment sayings are difficult to understand without inferring some experience of conflict and

disillusionment. Thus the impulse in Q research to move from interpretation to communal history

is a natural one, and it parallels the move in Jesus studies from the implied backstory of some

texts to their historical positions in the ministry. At this point the debate becomes only whether

one links the rejection to the Q people or to the historical Jesus. It could also, of course, be

both.765 Encouraging for Jesus critics in this respect are a few fairly recent studiesthose by

Reiser and Riniker, in particularthat have not only concluded that a good deal of the judgment

material in the Gospels goes back to Jesus, but have also claimed, as more of a side note, that the

experience of rejection in the ministry probably intensified this proclamation.766

Beyond that prospect, however, problems again arise quickly. The complexities noted

above of gathering such texts together and weaving them into some conclusion about different

periods in the ministry applies to proposals of different strata in Q. It is very difficult here to

go from the micro to the macro. While it is not necessary for our project to offer a full

assessment of the stratification of Q itself, we can admit the speculative nature of the endeavor,

as it parallels the crisis theory in that regard. In many cases, I would argue, Kloppenborgs

765
Cf. Kosch, Q und Jesus, 37: Im Proze der Rezeption der Verkndigung Jesu [and
esp. here the message of judgment] durch den Q-Kreis ist zwar mit Transformationsvorgngen
und Akzentverlagerungen, nicht aber mit radikalen Diskontinuitten zu rechnen.
766
Cf. Marius Reiser, Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its
Jewish Context (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 229-30, 304, 322
(the rejection of his message undoubtedly led him to emphasize the idea of judgment more
strongly); Christian Riniker, Die Gerichtsverkndigung Jesu (Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1999),
314-18, 332, 387-89, 458.

249
analyses of individual units themselves are less than compelling.767 But even if one were to grant

that he has successfully demonstrated, for instance, that the Baptist block (Q 7:18-35) has been

controlled by redaction to shape the opposition of Jesus and John to this generation,768 it is

another matter entirely to infer that this redaction is one and the same with his discoveries in

other units of material. The move from the identification of several common features among

four blocks of material, to the claim that they belong to the same redactional pattern, is a leap

not a step.769 The point is even clearer in his construction of Q3,770 where the temptation (Q 4:1-

12), Q 11:42c (it is these you ought to have practiced, without neglecting the others), and Q

16:17 (But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the

law to be dropped), despite being very different in literary form and style (e.g. hallmarks of

Kloppenborgs supposedly literary criteriology), are thought to comprise a third redactional

stage. To detect coherence in this material, and, even more, that it is different enough from the

Q1 and Q2 material to merit distinction as its own redactional layer, is a highly subjective

judgment that may tell us more about starting points and assumptions than anything else. And

767
For notable criticisms, though not all of equal weight, see Meier, Mentor, Message,
and Miracles, 179-80; Richard A. Horsley, The Historical Context of Q and The Contours of
Q, in Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (Harrisburg:
Trinity Press International, 1999), 46-60, 61-93; Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of
the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 133; Maurice Casey, An Aramaic
Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (SNTSMS 122; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002), 29-31; Brian Han Gregg, The Historical Jesus and the Final
Judgment Sayings in Q (WUNT 207; Tbingen: Mohr, 2006), 25-27; Christopher Tuckett, On
the Stratification of Q, From the Sayings to the Gospels, 143-52.
768
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 107.
769
Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 166. Cf. idem, Excavating Q, 148: Q 10:13-15
cohere(s) with other elements of the main redaction of Q(and) should be assigned to that
redactional phase too. He later mentions the interruptive character these sayings also share
(150).
770
John Kloppenborg, Nomos and Ethos in Q, Synoptic Problems, 204-21.

250
then, even if he is right in the profile of each stratum, there is a further issue of knowing which

came first and how the editorial development occurred.771 It is hard to avoid the conclusion that

the stratification of Q differs little from some of the bolder periodizations of the life of Jesus that

we have encountered in this study so far, and thus it issues a similar warning.

To be clear, it would go too far to claim that the attempt to identify theological or

thematic tensions in Q, any of the Gospels, or in the career of Jesus, is a foolhardy venture. Q

researchers are right to affirm that the contents of this document are of varied nature, regardless

of their further views on the origin, tradition history, and composition of Q.772 As mentioned in

Chapter 4, one benefit of the 19th-century crisis theory was that its proponents were open to

finding inconsistency in the tradition (as evidence of change and/or development), even if they

were not so explicit about what criteria qualified as such. Opponents of the crisis idea would

often simply assert, rather than demonstrate, a unity of message and mind on Jesus part. That is

no more plausible, prima facie. So important questions for our topic arise that we also touched

on in Chapter 4s assessment. If we are open to find tensions in the tradition, how do we know

when we have found them? And if we find them, how do we explain them?

771
Kloppenborg of course would argue that Q1 is likely primary because the
eschatological and polemical material in Q2 frames these passages literarily. But others
disagree, and have concluded nearly the reverse. For Siegfried Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der
Evangelisten (Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972), the first stage of Q framed Jesus as the Son
of man, and the second, from a Hellenistic rather than Jewish context, added sapiential ideas. For
Sato, Q und Prophetie, 406-11, Q is thought to resemble the prophetic books of the Old
Testament, to which sapiental material was later added. Note also that Arland D. Jacobson, The
Literary Unity of Q, JBL 101 (1982): 365-89, concluded that an earlier apocalyptic focus on the
imminent arrival of the Son of Man was supplemented by a Deuteronomistic and Wisdom
perspective.
772
But here too it should be recognized thatas Meier, Message, Mentor, and Miracles,
180 also observesthe attempt to identify various strata in Q is driven by the assumption that
there must have been some earlier coherence in form, interests, and theology that was confused
by later development.

251
 Both questions are especially relevant in current Jesus scholarship. As noted in section

5.2 above, most historical Jesus study today operates with the assumptionrather than the

express claimthat Jesus aims and teachings were largely consistent throughout his career.773

That is why the majority of studies the past fifty years have discussed particular themes and

topics in the tradition synchronically with little to no concern for their original, diachronic

placement in the ministry.774 Studies of repentance in the proclamation of Jesus, the kingdom

of God, healings and miracles, and so on, proceed by gathering together material deemed

relevant, analyzing it, and then drawing some conclusion.775 This process may lead to some

reliable results, but the conclusions may also be misleading insofar as they give the impression of

a fact that has been assumed, not demonstrated: that Jesus message was consistent, and that he

meant the same things by the same words.776 Some critics have expressly challenged the notion

773
Though, for a claim, see Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New
York; Evanston: Harper & Row, 1967), 109: Any division of the teaching of Jesus into various
parts by subjects is an act of violence against that teaching, which is a constantly interrelating
and interlocking whole. His atomistic approach hardly validates the claim.
774
Cf. Meier, Message, Mentor, and Miracles, 237: we must constantly remind
ourselves of a basic rule: between Jesus baptism and the last weeks of his life, there is no before
or after. The time frame and plot line of each evangelist are his own creation.Hence the major
sayings and deeds of Jesus during his ministry must be studied topically.
775
E.g. Eduard Schweizer, Jesus (trans. David E. Green; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1971
[orig 1968]); Leander E. Keck, Who is Jesus? History in Perfect Tense (Columbia: University of
South Carolina Press, 2000); Funk, Honest to Jesus; David Flusser, Jesus (3rd ed.; Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 2001 [orig. 1997]); Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
776
For instance, G. R. Beasley-Murrays masterful Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans; Exeter; Paternoster, 1986). Beasley-Murray analyzes sayings individually
and according to theme. He considers narrative context only when it suits his purposes, a few of
which are akin to our interests (cf. e.g.: 95, 107 [deJesus spoke of mystery at the end of his
Galilean ministry, when it had become apparent that the majority of the people had rejected his
proclamation], 110, 274 [the saying about the Twelve on thrones may be assumed to fall at a
time in the ministry of Jesus when his message had been rejected by many in his nation], 290
[Matthew 23 belongs to a later period of time, when resistance to the message of Jesus had
252
that Jesus should be thought internally consistent on all matters,777 but these considerations rarely

impact larger interpretive conclusions.

For us there is wisdom in the words of the English philosopher-historian R. G.

Collingwood:

you cannot find out what a man means by simply studying his spoken or written
statements, even though he has spoken or written with perfect command of language and
perfectly truthful intention. In order to find out his meaning you must also know what the
question was (a question in his own mind, and presumed by him to be in yours) to which
the thing he has said or written was meant as an answer.778

The insight should not be exaggerated to the point of absurdity. Even if we knew absolutely

nothing about the course of his career and only had Pauls epistles, we could know some

important matters rightly. The point is simply this: if Jesus message underwent development

throughout his public career, or if his aims changed in light of new circumstances, we would be

unable to identify the fact if we treat the Gospels as pools of tradition from which we gather

common motifs irrespective of the perplexing problem of placement and context.

increased]). In any case, despite his synchronic discussion, he is comfortable making diachronic
conclusions, as it is typical to find this sentiment: (such and such is) characteristic of the
instruction of Jesus that we have consistently noted in the course of our study thus far (129).
777
Cf. Frederick Houk Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1967), 355-60; Allison, Constructing Jesus, 88-97; Stephen J. Patterson, An
Unanswered Question: Apocalyptic Expectation and Jesus Basileia Proclamation, JSHJ 8
(2010): 67-79. This will be discussed more in Chapter 6.
778
R. G. Collingwood, An Autobiography (London: Oxford University Press, 1939), 31.

253
 5.5. CONCLUSION

Our key conclusions about the role and character of the Galilean crisis in 20th-21st-century

criticism are as follows:

(i) the decline in the popularity of the crisis theory is largely due to two factors: a focus
on the Gospels as creative theological documents in their own right and not mere portals
to the past; form critical approaches which atomized the pre-written Gospel tradition and
demolished the reliability of their chronological frames;

(ii) historical Jesus studies beyond the early 20th-century would increasingly focus on
individual sayings, activities, and themes in the tradition, irrespective of their
chronological placement in the ministry;

(iii) despite the paradigm shift of form criticism, many of the key texts that were
influential in the construction of a Galilean crisis (such as the Galilean woes and other
aspects of Jesus teaching about judgment) were still thought to imply a backstory of
rejection;

(iv) there were mid 20th-century attempts to reframe the crisis theory, particularly by
scholars from France and Britain; their studies attempted to respond to form criticism and
salvage something of a rough chronology of the ministry from Mark or other sources;

(v) more recent proposals since the 1970s for a crisis in the ministry have relied even less
on the Gospel chronologies, instead focusing almost exclusively on particular words of
Jesus and certain notable activities (esp. the sending of the Twelve and the
departure from Galilee);

(vi) the study of Q has mirrored the crisis theory in several notable ways: identifying the
same theological tensions in Jesus message, resolving those tensions with a
stratification/periodization technique, and assuming that failure and disappointment
inspired the inclusion of (or creation of) much of the judgment material in Q.

Our assessment of the crisis idea in this period was, as in Chapter 4, of a mixed nature. The 19th-

century Galilean crisis could not withstand Wredean and form critical conclusions about the

theological and episodic nature of the Gospels, and even more recent proposals for some crisis

event remain too confident in the ability of the historian to piece everything together. From

Maurice Goguel in the early 20th century to Eckhard Rau in very recent years, the step from the

micro to the macro has been from the reasonable to the speculative. Nevertheless, we have

254
encountered throughout this study a number of praiseworthy aspects in the theory, and several

more items that deserve further consideration. It is to such topics we now turn in Part III.

255
 CHAPTER 6.0:

CONSISTENCY AND CHANGE

In the assessment sections of the last two chapters, a number of issues have surfaced that deserve

further investigation. Two occupy the attention of this chapter. First, it has become apparent that

the methodology at play in the identification and historical explanation of theological tensions in

the Gospels deserves its own treatment. Even aside from the crisis theory, there have been

numerous proposals that posing a change of mind on Jesus part can explain such tensions. The

topic is, then, of wider and immediate relevance to Jesus studies, and there has been, to my

knowledge, no substantive engagement with it. The second issue is closely related: the question

of the consistency (or lack thereof) in Jesus aims and message throughout the course of his

career. Should we think it likely, Galilean crisis or not, that some event or series of events

changed his mind? This topic has been largely ignored in Jesus studies after form criticism. The

hope here is to offer arguments in areas where arguments are typically lacking.

6.1. POSSIBILITIES

Before one can evaluate whether or not Jesus underwent a crisis that changed his views on some

important matter, it is necessary to address what kind of historical approach would make that

conclusion possible in the first place. This line of inquiry is important because the construction

of a Galilean crisis has often hinged on the identification of various theological tensions in the

256
tradition, yet none of these studies have adequately addressed the deeper methodological

question of what the identification (and resolution) of those tensions would require of the readers

and of the texts themselves. Moreover, aside from the crisis theory, there have been numerous

other claims in 20th- to 21st-century scholarship that Jesus changed his mind, and these too have

often been attempts to resolve tensions in the tradition. A sampling:

Robert Grant contended in a short essay that Jesus had two different
eschatological expectations. He at first expected fulfillment/consummation in his
lifetime, but once the kingdom failed to come in Jerusalem during the final week,
he changed his view. The evidence for immediate fulfillment was the promise for
a hundredfold in the present age (Mark 10:30), the promise to come before
finishing the cities of Israel (Matt 10:23), seeing Satan fall from heaven (Luke
10:18), promising the Twelve thrones (Matt 19:28), and entering Jerusalem on an
ass (Mark 11:1-10). The counter evidence was this: nothing happened in
Jerusalem; Jesus now said he knew not the day or the hour (Mark 13:32).779

Paul Hollenbach once argued that Jesus, after his baptism, continued to baptize
with John as he had a serious commitment to his message. But then something
drastic happened: Jesus discovered he could heal, and thought that such healings
(and exorcisms) announced the presence of the kingdom of God. He broke with
John.780

George Wesley Buchanan wrote this: Jesus and John may at one time have been
confident that God wanted them to lead an open conflict against Rome as the two
anticipated messiahs. That plan was partially frustrated, however, by the death of
John the Baptist. This may have given Jesus an opportunity to rethink his role. It
was at that time that he began to reorganize his program to include wealthy,
Jewish businessmen and tax collectors. He expanded his program in size and
financial support to be prepared for a war with Rome, if that seemed to be the will
of God.781

779
Robert M. Grant, The Coming of the Kingdom, JBL 67 (1948): 297-303.
780
Paul W. Hollenbach, The Conversion of Jesus: From Jesus the Baptizer to Jesus the
Healer, ANRW II 25 (1982): 196-219. For a similar proposal, though focusing on Jesus vision
of Satans fall (Luke 10:18) rather than the sudden discovery of healing powers, see Ulrich B.
Mller, Vision und Botschaft: Erwgungen zur prophetischen Struktur der Verkndigung Jesu,
ZTK 74 (1977): 416-48.
781
George Wesley Buchanan, Jesus the King and His Kingdom (Macon: Mercer
University Press, 1984), 250.

257
 John Dominic Crossan claimed that Jesus shifted from an apocalyptic mindset as
a follower of the Baptist to a sapiental teacher after Johns death. He based his
view on sayings of Jesus about John that seemed to him contradictory (e.g. either
in favor of John or not). He concluded that both types of sayings are historical but
stem from different perspectives of Jesus on the matter at different times.782

Martin Ebner argued that at some point Jesus broke with the Baptist to engage his
own public ministry, believing that the Wende that the Baptist expected in the
near future had already occurred (Luke 10:18 is also significant for him).
However, at the end of his life in Jerusalem, when faced with rejection, he
returned to the apocalpyticism of his forerunner.783

Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz have proposed that, after the arrest of John the
Baptist and the failure of his prediction of imminent judgment to occur
immediately, Jesus came to a new realization: there had been a delay in the
consummation of the end, and God had mercifully granted a brief time of grace.
This divine delay inspired Jesus ethical teaching and his understanding of
forgiveness.784

Fernando Bermejo-Rubio has recently wondered if one can hold together Jesus
command to love enemies with (what he believes) are Jesus violent intentions in
Jerusalem by positing a spiritual evolution in Jesus. He claims that Jesus
seditious activities cluster around the end of his ministry, and Luke 22:35-38
seems to witness a shift in Jesus attitude.785

The brief descriptions make clear that the criteria used to identify a change of mind are thematic

in nature, or content based. That is, the arguments hinge on proposed tensions in the tradition

782
Crossan, Historical Jesus, 236-38. The idea is not unprecedented. Cf. John Riches,
Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism (New York: Seabury Press, 1982), 39 (Similarly Jesus
may, in the light of Johns beheading, have abandoned the belief that Gods justice will be
demonstrated at the imminent judgment of Johns stronger one when those who repent will be
vindicated); Patterson, An Unanswered Question, 78 (though for him Jesus continued to
waffle).
783
Martin Ebner, Jesus von Nazaret in seiner Zeit: Sozialgeschichtliche Zugnge (SBS
196; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2003), 103, 104, 190 (wieder auf den Kurs seines
Lehrers eingeschwenkt, which he describes as a leicht pessimistischen Haltung), 192-93.
784
Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Delay of the Parousia as a Test Case for the
Criterion of Coherence, LS 32 (2007): 49-66.
785
Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance: A Reassessment of
the Arguments, JSHJ 12 (2014): 1-105 at 91. He proposes other possible explanations,
however, including that Jesus was not always consistent.

258
that, in order to be resolved, require the hypothesis that Jesus teaching changed. The interpretive

move resembles that behind the stratification of Q, though the stratification, or periodization,

occurs in the ministry of Jesus himself. It is also striking that most of these studies have to do

with issues of eschatology and judgment in the tradition (and thus Jesus relationship with John

the Baptist, by extension)that is, issues that have also inspired the idea of a Galilean crisis and

were discussed as early as John Chrysostom.786

It is important to recall at the outset that the Assessment section in Chapter 4.4 listed the

openness to finding inconsistency of the tradition as one positive characteristic of the 19th-

century crisis theory. That point stands. It is dubious to assume at the outset a unity of message

and mind on Jesus part, even though that was often the position of many critics of the crisis

theory and even characterizes much of Jesus scholarship today (discussed more below). In any

case, it can be concluded that the constructing of periods in Jesus career on the basis of

theological tensions in the Gospels is a highly tenuous procedure. There are three reasons why:

(i) there is an interpretive difficulty in reconstructing these synthetic tensions with the requisite

clarity and precision, (ii) the nature of our extant sources make it difficult to succeed, and (iii)

even if one grants that these tensions can be properly identified, the result lacks explanatory

power for a historical reconstruction.

(i) The most fundamental problem with using theological or thematic tensions to divide

the ministry of Jesus is that we have to admit, if we are honest, that we really do not know what

Jesus expected to happen in his ministry. And if we do not know what Jesus expected to happen,

then we can never identify some crisis that changed his views of what would happen. Critics are

in unanimous agree, of course, that Jesus ministry was devoted to proclaiming the kingdom of

786
See above pp 64-66.

259
God, and a good number further suppose that that kingdom was of an apocalyptic and/or

eschatological character. But that generality actually tells us very little about what in particular

Jesus saw when he peered into the future. To watch E. P. Sanders labor to address what Jesus

hoped would come to pass is evidence enough.787 Our lack of knowledge troubles any attempt to

periodize the ministry, for if we lack precise knowledge of the ends to which Jesus strove, then

we cannot identify departures from those ends that could in any way be considered a crisis.

Cecil Cadouxs proposal, for instance, begins to fall apart if one challenges his assumption that

Jesus had initially aimed to inaugurate the kingdom on earth by winning over the enemies of

Israel by acts of love.788 If such was not Jesus aim, then certainly the failure to do so would not

be cause for crisis.

Of course, to say that the ends are fuzzy does not mean that the rest is too. Identifying

certain theological tensions in the tradition does not require absolute clarity on Jesus ultimate

aims, and it would be foolish to deny the reality of what Mack has called shifts in discourse in

Jesus teaching.789 But problems emerge once such tensions are synthesized into larger groupings

that are compared and contrasted with others in the tradition.790 One difficulty was briefly

787
See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 228-37. Sanders concludes that Jesus may not have
had a practical strategy to achieve his goals; he ultimately left it up to God (pp. 226, 235, 332).
Cf. Dodd, Founder of Christianity, 96 (if we ask what overt result Jesus may have hoped for,
the answer is not easy, because he issued no programme of religious or political reform, any
more than he laid down precise regulations for individual behavior).
788
Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 173.
789
Mack, Lost Gospel, 203.
790
This is not a problem unique to historical Jesus studies. Two examples: (a) Douglas
Campbells treatment of the history of Pauline exegesis in The Deliverance of God: An
Apocalyptic Re-Reading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) parallels some
of the interpretive issues at play in the crisis theory. Much of Campbells book is his attempt to
construct, and then deconstruct, a theological system which he calls Justification theory. He
understands this system to be at fundamental odds with Pauls true Gospel, such that he can offer
260
described in the Assessment section of Chapter 4.4: the identification and reconstruction of such

tensions, and the periodizing of the ministry in turn, often tell us more about the readers and their

interpretive categories than the texts. In the early 19th century, Hases crisis theory aimed to

resolve the binary between spiritual and political messianism that had emerged most

forcefully in the work of Reimarus. But this binary was a creation of Christian interpreters

largely due to cariatures of Judaism. Similarly, in the late 19th century, many crisis proposals

aimed to resolve a tension between ethics and eschatology in the Gospels. But problems with this

view have been shown in recent years via criticism of the stratification of Qarguments which,

as shown in Chapter 5, bear marked resemblance to the earlier crisis theory. The stratification of

similar tensions in Q has been challenged with the observation that numerous texts from our

period set these perspectives side by side with little issue.791 Not only that, but as Kmmel

a radical re-reading of Romans 1:21-3:20 (which he sees not as Pauls own view but a rhetorical
attack of his opponents) almost entirely on the basis of perceived theological tensions between
these two systems. For a critique of Campbells method and conclusions, see Barry R. Matlock,
Zeal for Paul but not According to Knowledge: Douglas Campbells War on Justification
Theory, JSNT 34 (2011): 115-149. (b) Note also the attempt of Gabriele Boccaccini to
distinguish between priestly, sapiental, and enochian strands of Judaism. See e.g. Beyond the
Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). His approach is devoted to the identification of theological themes and
tensions in the sources. James C. VanderKam, The Book of Enoch and the Qumran Scrolls, in
The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 257-77 at 269, critiques Boccaccini on precisely his
attempt to reconstruct whole theologies from documents ill-suited to that interest.
791
Cf. J. G. Williams, Neither Here Nor There: Between Wisdom and Apocalyptic in
Jesus Kingdom Sayings, Forum 5 (1989): 7-30; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 372-80;
Dale C. Allison Jr., The Problem of Gehenna, Resurrecting Jesus, 56-99 at 67-73; George W.
E. Nickelsburg, Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Early Judaism: Some Points for Discussion, in
Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism (eds. Benjamin G. Wright III and
Lawrence M. Wills; SBLSymS 35; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 17-37; Grant
Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity (SJSJ 115; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007); Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels,
65-66; Andreas Grandy, Die Weisheit der Gottesherrschaft: Eine Untersuchung zur jesuanischen
Synthese von traditioneller und apokalyptischer Weisheit (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2012), 31-32.

261
reasoned concerning present and future eschatology in the Gospels themselves, it is

impossible to assume thatthough in the tradition these conceptions were placed side by side,

yet in Jesus thinking they belonged to periods following one after the other in time.792 Thus,

before we can get to Q, and certainly before we can get to the historical Jesus, we have to

grapple with the one, clear fact of the matter: our earliest extant sources have no qualms placing

adjacently many of those traditions that critics have thought belonged to different historical

periods or literary strata.793 If such is true of our primary sources, we must ask why not for Q,794

and why not for the historical Jesus?

In fact, the problem goes deeper than the state of our extant data. Our lack of evidence is

also a factor.795 As briefly mentioned in Chapter 4, periodizing tensions in the tradition requires

that one first reconstruct from the texts two more or less coherent theological perspectives that

can be compared. But it is difficult when our sources are full of gaps and holes on precisely the

kind of information we would need to do this.796 The Gospels provide only snapshots of the life

and teaching of Jesus relevant to their overall theological purposes, and they do not share the

modern historians concern for systematic thought, interest in development, or curiosity about

792
Kmmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 142-3 (italics orig.).
793
See here the cogent reflections of Ulrich Luz on Matthew in Matthews Interpretive
Tendencies and the Historical Jesus, in Charlesworth and Rhea, Jesus Research: New
Methodologies and Perceptions, 577-99 at 597.
794
Cf. Richard A. Horsley, Questions about Redactional Strata and Social Relations
Reflected in Q, in Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers (ed. D. J. Lull; SBLSP
28; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 186-203.
795
The problem here is readily apparent when reading the argument of Descamps,
Rflexions sur leschatologie de Jsus, 441, where he contends that concern for judgment, the
Son of Man, and apocalyptic are absent from the earliest teaching of Jesus.
796
For some thoughts along these lines see Craig A. Evans, Reconstructing Jesus
Teaching: Prospects and Proposals, in Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (eds.
Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; AGSU 39; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1997), 145-78 at 146-55.

262
motive.797 Thus, historians are often prone to repeat the error of past theologians who, on account

of their honest desire to know the full character of Jesus, would say things like this: Jesus never

laughed.798 This example is rather extreme, but Chrysostom is not the only one who has failed to

allow the lack of evidence we have about Jesus temper claims made about him.799 The study of

John the Baptist has been plagued by a similar dilemma up to very recent times, since

interpreters have routinely characterized Johns ministry, and contrasted his theology to that of

Jesus, by systematizing the very meager material we have about John.800 It has been common to

claim that predictions of coming judgment characterized the whole of Johns message to Israel,

which contrasts Jesus message of grace and the kingdom.801 As in the sampling above, some

have come to this conclusion by psychologizing Johns arrest and/or execution, asserting that

797
Graham N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (SNTSMS 27;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 123.
798
Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 6.8.
799
The predicament is probably a symptom of all reading, as Gadamer argued that
readers read by projecting a horizon of meaning from the details they encounter, all the while
revising that horizon as new information comes to light. Cf. e.g. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth
and Method (New York: Crossroad, 1989 [orig. 1960]), 302, 304. Here he builds on Husserls
work in Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology (trans. W. R. Boyce Gibson;
London: G. Allen & Unwin; New York: Macmillan, 1931 [orig. 1913]). The study of Jesus must
intensify this reality, and provide less opportunity to revise, given that the Gospels have so many
empty pockets that invite filling with historical imagination.
800
Cf. e.g. Eta Linnemann, Jesus und der Taufer, in Festschrift fr Ernst Fuchs (ed.
Gerhard Ebeling et al.; Tbingen: Mohr, 1973), 219-36; Hollenbach, The Conversion of Jesus,
196-219 (at 198 he caricatures Johns ministry via wrath and judgment as a point of contrast with
Jesus); Crossan, Historical Jesus, 237.
801
E.g. Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:314; Jeremias, Proclamation of
Jesus, 156 (Jesus summons to repentance is quite different than Johns), 157 (John threatens
with judgment, Jesus motivates by appealing to the goodness of God). Cf. Schillebeeckx, Jesus,
139 (the prophet of woe and the prophet of salvation); Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 38-39
(Nothing even approaching a promise of salvation crosses [the Baptists] lips).

263
that event disillusioned Jesus and caused him to reconsider the Baptists fiery message.802 But

such reconstructions, aside from being speculative, presume to know much more about Johns

ministry than can really be claimed.803

A counterfactual thought experiment: let us imagine that Jesus uttered Q 11:20 (If I by

the finger [or spirit] of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you), but

by some accident of history it was never included in the Gospels. That scenario is, in fact, an

eminently plausible one, since Mark preserves the Beelzebul accusation but lacks this saying of

Jesus in response.804 Had it not been included, I have no doubt that some critics would suppose

that the preaching of the kingdom and Jesus exorcistic activity stem from different stages of his

career.805 The reason is that this saying remains the only explicit link in the triple and double

tradition between Jesus exorcisms and the advent of the kingdom of God. In fact, in the Gospel

of Mark, there are pericopae devoted to Jesus preaching/teaching the kingdom, and pericopae
802
See here Patterson, Unanswered Question, 76-78. Cf. also John Monro Gibson,
The Gospel of St. Matthew, in Jeremiah-St. Mark (vol. 4 of An Exposition of the Bible;
Hartford: S. S. Scranton Co., 1914), 744; S. H. Hooke, Kingdom of God, 104 (the crisis of Johns
death leads Jesus to decide he needs to build his Church); Crossan, Historical Jesus, 236-38;
Laurent Guynot, A New Perspective on John the Baptists Failure to Support Jesus, Journal
of Unification Studies 1 (1997): 71-92; Theissen and Merz, Delay of the Parousia, 60.
803
For additional thoughts along these lines, see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 140 (we
cannot claim certain views distinctively characteristic of Jesus, since we do not know
everything that John the Baptist thought about his own mission); Allison, Excursus 2: The
Continuity Between John the Baptist and Jesus, Constructing Jesus, 204-20.
804
For discussion and literature on this saying as an isolated logion, see Meier, Mentor,
Message, and Miracles, 407-30.
805
This is, in fact, close to what Morton Smith argued in Jesus the Magician (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 83: the miracle stories in the synoptics are not usually
connected with Jesus teaching, and when they are, the connections are usually secondary. (He
is thinking of the summary-statements). His historical conclusion: Evidently the traditions were
originally separate; this suggests that the activities were. The recent study by Amanda Witmer,
Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context (LNTS 429; London;
New York: T & T Clark, 2014), does not attempt to draw out the connection between Jesus
exorcisms and his teaching in any detail.

264
devoted to Jesus driving out demons, but never any specific episode that links the two in the

manner of Q 11:20. Both appear only in a few Sammelberichte (1:39; 6:12-13), which so many

have deemed Markan creations and thus dismissed as irrelevant for historical reconstruction.806

Of course there would be counter-arguments, and critics would assuredly muster background

evidence that link the advent of Gods end-time rule with the overthrow of Satans dominion

(e.g. T. Mos. 10:1; T. Levi 18:12; T. Sim. 6:6; T. Zeb. 9:8; T. Dan 6:1-14; Jub. 5:6; 48:15;

4Q174 1:10-13; 1QM 14:9, 15; 17:5-6; 18:1-3; 11Q13 2:13). But there would be debate about it,

no doubt.

As it is, however, it cannot be that the exorcizing and the proclaiming stem from different

periods of the ministry. The clearest reason is the simple and somewhat random fact that Q 11:20

has been preserved.807 Should it have been lost, a reconstruction based on the extant evidence

alone could quite easily, and even unsuspectingly, imply knowledge that goes beyond that

evidence, and hence distorts the historical truth.

Examples like this could be multiplied with ease. We could imagine, for instance, that Q

lacked the so-called Johannine thunderbolt (Q 10:21-22). It would be easy to maintain that the

verbiage of Johns Jesus was a creation of that Evangelist. But because of Q 10:21-22 we know

806
Cf. Nineham, Order of Events in St. Marks Gospel, 233; Ernest Best, Following
Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 14 note 6, 175, 230.
807
Hence Q 11:20 occupies an important place in many discussions of Jesus kingdom
message. See Joseph Bonsirven, Le rgne de Dieu (Paris: ditions Montaigne, 1957), 67-70;
Perrin, Rediscovering, 64-65; Jacques Schlosser, La rgne de Dieu dans les dits de Jesus (2
vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1980), 127-54; Hans Weder, Gegenwart und Gottesherrschaft:
berlegungen zum Zeitverstndnis bei Jesus und im frhen Christentum (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 26-34. Ironically, however, sometimes these discussions make
similarly extensive claims that overlook our lack of evidence, such as Graham H. Twelftrees
claim in Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (WUNT 54;
Tbingen: Mohr, 1993), 224, that Jesus was the first to make the connection between exorcism
and eschatology (italics orig.), largely based on this one saying. Twelftrees assertion is
common.

265
that at least some of Johns sonship language has traction in pre-existing tradition.808 One

preserved saying demonstrates continuity where, in its absence, discontinuity may have

suggested itself. Another: what would happen if we did not have the Baptist block in Q, where

Jesus says so many affirming things about John? Or what if, befitting later Christian theological

proclivities, we had only one saying from Jesus about John that made it into the tradition, and it

happened to be the one that names John as the least in the kingdom (Q 7:28)? Perhaps the

views of Hollenbach and Crossan on the discontinuity between Jesus and John would be standard

fare. Or what if all that early Christians had preserved was some form of the passion narrative?

Would we ever surmise that the one who cleansed the temple had formerly taught in synagogues

in the Galilee? Would we ever presume that, before teaching in Jerusalem, Jesus had used the

kingdom of God as one of his most characteristic expressions? Would we ever suspect that this

teacher in the temple had won renown for his exorcisms and other deeds of power when in the

Galilee?

The lessons learned from such counterfactual experiments can only go so far. But it is

obviously true that the historical Jesus did and said much more than the Gospels have preserved,

and that historical reconstructions which fail to account for that fact can mislead. It must be

granted, then, that periodizing the ministry on the basis of perceived theological tensions can

808
Cf. Jeremias, Proclamation of Jesus, 59; Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth
Gospel, 359-61; Andreas Lindemann, Die Logienquelle Q. Fragen an eine gut begrndete
Hypothese, in Lindemann, Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, 3-26 at 25; Michael
Theobald, Das sogenannte johanneische Logion in der synoptischen berlieferung (Mt 11,25-
27; Lk 10,21f.) und das Vierte Evangelium: Erwgungen zum Ursprung der johanneischen
Christologie, in Studien zu Matthus und Johannes: Festschrift fr Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65.
Geburtstag (eds. Andreas Dettwiler, Uta Poplutz, and Jean Zumstein; ATANT 97; Zrich:
Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 109-33.

266
only provide the illusion of having fit all the evidence together comprehensively, since our

sources themselves are only pieces of a larger incomplete puzzle.809

(ii) Aside from the consequences of our lack of evidence, the very nature of the extant

evidence is often too quickly disregarded in the quest to get to the history behind it.810 That is to

say, the plotlines, characterization techniques, and other stylistic and thematic features of the

Gospels work to eliminate the kinds of historical clues that would lead historians to believe that

some change of mind had occurred. Chapter 5.5 outlined ways that each of the four Gospels

function as passion narratives with extended introductions.811 That is, the canonical four have

been constructed so as to position Golgotha as the pinnacle and telos of the ministry.812 This

presentation, while perhaps historical in the sense that Jesus did not find his execution a

complete surprise, smooths over and normalizes what was clearly for the followers of Jesus a

turbulent and troublesome series of events.813 Thus, if these narratives could nearly dissolve the

crisis of the cross, how much more, we should suppose, a Galilean crisis before the cross. This

point has little to say about the Jesus of history; it merely states that since we can only access the

809
Alan Kirk, The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony and Wisdom
Redaction in Q (NovTSup 91; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1998), 400, wrote: mixing of genres does
not necessitate a redaction-history judgment if the genres in question are integrated with respect
to each other and to the total textual Gestalt. For the question of the historical Jesus, the issue is
clear: we do not have the total Gestalt.
810
A criticism that resembles what Wrede, Messianic Secret, 5, said to his
contemporaries: We are in too great a hurry to leave the terrain of the evangelists accounts
(and run to the history behind it) (italics orig.).
811
Khler, So-Called Historical Jesus, 80 note 1.
812
Again Khler, So-Called Historical Jesus, 89: everywhere we see that the
evangelists purposes have determined how the materials at his disposal are to be employed.
813
See Hiers, Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 107.

267
Jesus of history via the sources that commemorate him, reconstructions of some Galilean crisis

are unlikely to get very far given the Tendenzen of these sources.

Since we already discussed Q 11:20 above, we can offer another case study on the

Beelzebul controversy via Joel Marcuss essay The Beelzebul Controversy and the

Eschatologies of Jesus.814 Marcus has argued that embedded in the Beelzebul controversy are

two contradictory perspectives on the exorcisms. One (Satans house is not divided) assumes

Satans house has not been overthrown. The second (the strong man has been bound [as well

as Q 11:20]), assumes that Jesus believed his exorcisms delivered a near fatal blow to Satan and

his minions. Marcus contended that both sayings go back to Jesus, but the Gospels have distorted

the historical reality by juxtaposing these contrary perspectives in the same pericope. The truth is

that these sayings each come from different stages of the ministry, and presuppose some

development in the thought of Jesus. Early in his ministry, before being baptized by John, Jesus

was a miraculous healer and exorcist, but did not understand his individual episodes of

exorcisms to be paradigms of the inauguration of the eschaton. But with time and success as an

exorcist, and especially after his baptismal vision of Satan falling from heaven (Luke 10:18),

Jesus began to see his exorcisms playing a unique role in the inauguration of the kingdom. 815

It is plain that Marcuss argument closely parallels the way that many have reconstructed

a Galilean crisis, especially after form criticism. The atomistic approach to the pericope, the

814
Joel Marcus, The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus, in
Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (eds. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; Leiden; Boston:
Brill, 2002), 247-278.
815
Marcus claims as evidence of development in Jesus thought (a) suggestions that
Jesus exorcisms were not unique (Q 11:19), (b) the saying about demons returning to
formerly exorcised people (Matt 12:43-45, which he convincingly takes as a reflection on failed
exorcism or relapse), (c) and more exclusive sayings like: those who are not with me are against
me (Q 11:23).

268
identification of some thematic tension therein, the inferring of backstories behind the various

sayings at hand, and the linking of these sayings to others in the tradition that are theologically

similar, are all identical to the way that crisis proponents proceeded in the past. But it is the

unexplored implications of Marcuss argument about the nature of our sources that cast doubt

over this reconstruction, just as it does for the crisis theory. If Marcus were right, it would mean

that in pre-Markan tradition sayings were so thoroughly detached from their original contexts

that they assumed radically new meanings, and the harmonization of two originally contradictory

perspectives on the exorcism by the Evangelists produce a distorted picture of the historical

truth. Moreover, it would mean that, despite the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to

assume that the flow of the dialogue is logical, we remain in position not only to extract these

sayings from their narrative contexts and infer their true and contrarian meanings, but to

reconstruct the real historical contexts for them. All of these implications are possible, of course.

But the argument requires herculean confidence in the ability of the historian to reassemble all of

these pieces of Gospel tradition that the narrative presentations of the Evangelists have

thoroughly disassembled.816

Should it be correct, then, that the Evangelists have woven together stories about Jesus

from a contradictory and free-floating sayings tradition, a more sober truth would avail itself: we

know less about what Jesus actually thought, not that we can know more about, in Marcuss

case, his different eschatologies. The same is true of a Galilean crisis. If indeed our sources have

so distorted these different periods of Jesus careerplacing indiscriminately together sayings

and actions that were historically separated by time, space, audience, and intentionthe upshot

816
This point is similar to some critiques of the early 20th-century form-critical attempt to
reconstruct tradition history. Cf. Dale C. Allison Jr., Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 29; Law, Historical-Critical Method, 177-81.

269
should be that we find the career of Jesus more opaque than before, and our possible

reconstructions less forthcoming.

(iii) For the sake of argument, however, let us grant that a critic could reconstruct with

sufficient clarity some tension in the Gospel tradition that required diachronic resolution (via,

e.g., periodization or stratification). A final difficulty follows: change of mind is only one

possible explanation of the evidence among many others.

Marcuss article above again demonstrates the point. One could grant that Marcus

successfully identified different eschatologies in the Beelzebul controversy. But agreement on

that point does not require one to agree with Marcuss additional conclusion that Jesus

worldview developed in the particular way that he describes. His evidence, if you agree with his

interpretation, is merely that we find contradictory perspectives on the exorcisms in the same

pericope. Indeed, armed with the same evidence as Marcus, one could reverse the direction of

development and say that Jesus period of success as an exorcist actually preceded a period of

disappointment. That explanation may in fact be preferable to Marcuss, since we know nothing

of a pre-baptismal ministry of Jesus, and the latter halves of the Synoptics are conspicuously

lacking in miracles and exorcisms.

In any case, the point is that the evidence mustered by Marcus in his essay, or by many of

those proposing some Galilean crisis in the ministry, rarely requires the historical narrative that

is constructed around the evidence. One could spy development in a number of directions, or

even pose, on the basis of the same evidence, that Jesus did not gradually develop from A to B

but rather changed his mind rather dramatically from A to B. Or one could say that A and B do

not represent discreet periods or stages of Jesus career but simply reflect diverse experiences

that were characteristic throughout the whole of his ministry. It is difficult to know how to

270
decide which narrative is preferable, because the evidence so often lacks explanatory force.817

The same is true the stratification of Q, as noted above. One can agree that certain passages and

even groups of passages in the final form of Q are redactional and do not square with the earlier

recension. But to admit that point takes us no closer to Kloppenborgs stratification theory than it

does to any other proposal.818

Some would even challenge the implicit assumption that Jesus was consistent within the

particular period or stage of life that he found himself. So there is another possibility still.

Numerous critics the past 20 to 30 years have thought it only reasonable that Jesus, like most

people, contradicted himself from time to time.819 E. P. Sanders wrote people who think and

talk in pictures may use apparently self-contradictory ones.820 Jack Sanders made an interesting

case in a 1998 NTS article that Jesus had a certain randomness about his activity which was

817
Kmmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 142, was thinking along these lines when he wrote
concerning the eschatology of Jesus that detached sayings cannot provide evidence for
development, because more or less convincing reasons can be produced for assuming both a
gradual weakening and also a gradual strengthening of Jesus imminent expectations, so that the
two arguments cancel each other out.
818
Cf. Tuckett, On the Stratification of Q, 143-52. Note here, e.g., Maurice Caseys
chaotic model of Q as argued for in his An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels
of Matthew and Luke (SNTSMS 122; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) (which
aims to account for differences in theological outlooks but mostly intends to explain both the
verbatim agreements between Matthew and Luke and those that share little in word choice,
syntax, and order). Another alternative among the legions possible: what is it about Q that
excludes the hypothesis that it developed in much the same way that April DeConick has
suggested for the Gospel of Thomas: a rolling corpus? Cf. Rediscovering the Original Gospel
of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth (LNTS 287; London; New York: T & T
Clark, 2007).
819
Or not just Jesus, but early Christians in general. C. F. D. Moule argued in an
important essay that Jesus followers never created a systematic eschatology because their
terminology and concepts were fashioned situationally and in response to different questions.
See The Influence of Circumstances on the Use of Eschatological Terms, JTS 15 (1964): 1-15.
820
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 236.

271
essential to his charisma.821 Stephen Patterson concluded in one essay on the Son of Man,

already cited above, that Jesus never fully made up his mind about Johns eschatological

program, and his vacillation is reflected in the tradition.822 James Charlesworth claimed Jesus

was inconsistent regarding the time of the coming of Gods Rule.823 And Dale Allison

contended, in defense of his eschatological portrait of Jesus, that Consistency is the hobgoblin

of nonapocalyptic minds.824 The increasing frequency of such suggestions in recent times no

doubt reflects our postmodern Zeitgeist, just as 19th-century critics were prone to see

development everywhere they looked. But these studies would recognize the same dilemma in

our sources that others use to periodize the ministrytheological tensionsand offer a radically

different explanation.

All of these difficulties which complicate the reconstruction of a Galilean crisis are not

unique to Jesus research but are rather shared with the study of any ancient figure who can only

be accessed via fragmentary literary remains. There is a parallel between the attempt to pinpoint

the coherence and inner-tensions in the thought of Jesus and the attempt of Pauline scholars to

systemize Pauls theology on the basis of his occasional epistles. There is always the risk that

a researcher will unintentionally include or exclude material that is essential to the matter at

hand. There is the possibility that she will underdetermine or overdetermine the significance of

that material. We learn both of the inevitably subjective nature of historical interpretation, and of

the patchy nature of our sources, when one critics Paul can have a coherent narrative theology
821
Jack T. Sanders, The Criterion of Coherence and the Randomness of Charisma:
Poring Through some Aporias in the Jesus Tradition, NTS 44 (1998): 1-25.
822
Patterson, Unanswered Question.
823
James H. Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 2008), 101.
824
Allison, Constructing Jesus, 96. See in general 87-97.

272
with room for every jot and tittle in the epistles,825 anothers can develop in important ways

throughout the course of his ministry,826 and still anothers cannot be saved from irreconcilable

theological contradictions.827 And even then, the parallel to our topic is not exact, for historical

Jesus scholars probably have it worse than Pauline critics.828 Paul was not a systematic

theologian by any means, but he was probably more systematic than Jesus, or at least his ideas

have come down to us in more systematizable media.

In all, therefore, the attempt to reconstruct a Galilean crisis in the manner attempted by

those critics in Chapters 4 and 5, in addition to other proposals that Jesus changed his mind in

some drastic way during his ministry, are unlikely to succeed.

6.2. EARLY PERCEPTIONS OF JESUS

The above conclusion does not in any way imply, however, that Jesus was consistent in his aims

and message. The discussion thus far has concerned not the Jesus of history, but rather the ways

that our sources remember the Jesus of history. It is possible that Jesus changed his mind

numerous times throughout his ministry and found crises around every bend. The point is that,

should that be true, our sources do not permit us to know much about it.

825
Cf. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2013).
826
Cf. J. W. Drane, Paul, Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major
Pauline Epistles (London: SPCK, 1975).
827
Cf. Heikki Risnen, Paul and the Law (WUNT 29; Tbingen: Mohr, 1983).
828
See here Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The
Question of Criteria (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 236 note 7 (figures who
think less systematically, including Jesus, probably have at least as many contradictions in their
utterances as does Paul, if not more).

273
 But with that negative side of the argument complete, we now turn to make a positive

case concerning the question of the consistency of the historical Jesus. As mentioned numerous

times in this study, criticism of the Galilean crisis idea throughout history has often retreated to a

position that merely assumes or asserts a unity of intention on the part of Jesus. Paul Hollenbach

complained:

There is an assumption, again usually based on theological commitments, that Jesus, at

least in his mature years and certainly throughout his public career, did not change, grow,
or develop in his thought and strategy in response either to inner psychological or outer
environmental factors.829

Hollenbach is on point here about calling this view an assumption. He is also likely correct in

stating the impact of theology on it, though in a different way than he intends. It is probably not

due to overt theological agendas, but is rather a legacy of earlier Christian exegetical practices

and habits of reading which have generally assumed Jesus to be the stable in the midst of the

unstable; the eternal Word in the midst of changing culture. In the 20th century, it would become

even harder to dislodge this assumption given the atomization of Jesus research following form

criticism, which left subsequent study with synchronic discussions of discreet sayings, events,

and themes in the Gospels. The outcome of such topically oriented studies has been, intentionally

or not, to relegate questions of development, change, and consistency to the antiquated 19th-

century Quest.830

829
Hollenbach, The Conversion of Jesus, 202. Note also Henry J. Cadbury, The Peril
of Modernizing Jesus (London: SPCK, 1937), 139: The modern age, even without reference to
the gospel, tends to believe that Jesus must have so lived (deliberately working out a plan). Every
good man is expected now to have such a unity, definiteness and consciousness of purpose. Even
if we cannot discover it we assume it in Jesus, and mostly we can read such unity, definiteness
and consciousness of purpose into the gospel story.
830
Though there have been some recent attempts to reintroduce psychology to the study
of Jesus. See Bas van Os, Psychological Analyses and the Historical Jesus: New Ways to
Explore Christian Origins (LNTS 432; London; New York: T & T Clark, 2011); Donald Capps,
274
 I will advance my view on the matter, which is twofold. On the one hand, we can hardly

deny that Jesus developed in the sense that new experiences shaped his outlook.831 The next

chapter will offer more suggestions on this front. On the other hand, the evidence is strongly

suggestive that Jesus was on the whole consistent in aims and message throughout the course of

his brief public career,832 such that the notion of crisis as change of mind is improbable.833 The

remainder of this chapter will defend this view.

Beyond Schweitzer and the Psychiatrists: Jesus as Fictive Personality, in Charlesworth and
Rhea, Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions, 399-435.
831
Memorable here are Sanderss reflections on development in Paul in his essay for
Richard Hayss Festschrift: Did Pauls Theology Develop?, in The Word Leaps the Gap:
Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays (eds. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin
Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 325-50. He explores the
question in more detail in his recent book Paul: The Apostles Life, Letters, and Thought
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015). His ideas are not unrelated to our project, and are worth
quoting in full:
Discussions of Pauls theology often make him too bookish or academic. He spent years of his life
on the road, carrying (presumably on pack animals) his tent, clothing, and toolsnot many
scrolls, if any. He carried the Bible safely tucked away in his head, where it belongs. As an
apostle, he often supported himself by plying his trade. He was busy, traveling, working with his
hands, winning people for Christ, shepherding or coping with his converts, responding to
questions and problems. He was very humanPaul the completely confident academic and
systematic theologiansitting at his desk, studying the Bible, working out a system, perfect and
consistent in all its parts, unchanging over a period of thirty years, no matter how many new
experiences he and his churches hadis an almost inhuman character, either a thinking machine
or the fourth person of the Trinity. The real Paul knew anger, joy, depression, triumph, and
anguish; he reacted, he overreacted, he repented, he apologized, he flattered and cajoled, he
rebuked and threatened, he argued this way and that: he did everything he could think of in order
to win some. Naturally his mind matured, his thinking grew (347, italics orig.).

See also Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 126: That there was some development during
this relatively short time, I do not doubt. His view is this: What and how much it was, I do not
know, nor does anyone else.
832
On the brevity of Jesus career as a potential reason to doubt significant development
or change, see Loisy in Hoffmann, Les vies de Jsus, 122; Campbell, Life of Christ, 150. Semler,
Beantwortung der Fragmente eines Ungenannten, 188-92, had raised a similar criticism of
Reimarus reconstruction.
833
Of interest to us is not whether or not Jesus actually was consistent. After all, we are
not dealing with mathematical formulas here but theological language games. The phrase the
kingdom of God, which stands at the center of Jesus public proclamation, is itself a polyvalent
275
 We should note, as an initial point, just how difficult a task it is to address the question of

the consistency of Jesus. The main problem with the criterion of coherence in Jesus studies is

not that its application is too subjective (though it contains, like all historiography, a degree of

subjectivity).834 It is rather the way it has been commonly applied by critics: we clarify what

Jesus says here by means of what he said there.835 That approach will not do for a question like

ours. The whole discussion and application of the criterion of coherence occurs within the

synchronic space that the Gospels have constructed for uswhere our terms and stories have

been fixed, and the Aramaic-to-Greek determinedand thus begs the very question of whether

or not Jesus was in fact consistent.836 There is nothing objectionable about using Jesus teaching

on one topic to clarify his views on another, and this chapter and the next will use that approach

and evocative expression. Other critics remind that the thought-world of first century Judaism is
a blend of ideas, motifs, and concepts, not readily given over to system. Cf. Daniel J. Harrington,
The Jewishness of Jesus: Facing Some Problems, in Jesus Jewishness: Exploring the Place of
Jesus within Early Judaism (New York: Crossroad, 1991), 123-36 at 130-31, 136; Reiser, Jesus
and Judgment, 162 (A search for concretization of imagery and internal consistency, coherence
of ideas, motifs, and conceptions, is foreign to the apocalyptic authors); Macaskill, Revealed
Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology, 248.
834
Cf. Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research:
Previous Discussion and New Proposals (JSNTSup 191; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000), 81-82; Allison, How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity, 1, 12.
835
This is, of course, not unknown to many of the skilled historians who use the criterion
of coherence, such as John Meier. Meier contends that coherence can be brought into play only
after a certain amount of historical material has been isolated by the previous criteria which he
calls a data base. See Roots of the Problem and the Person, 176-77.
836
Cf. Le Donne, Criterion of Coherence, in Keith and Le Donne, Jesus, Criteria, and
the Demise of Authenticity, 110 (it assumes Jesus must always have been consistent within his
public career). However, Le Donnes problem with the criteria of coherence is elsewhere: he
thinks it encourages historians to think in terms of binary (or ternary) contexts for Jesus
tradition (111). Le Donne writes that we can assume that Jesus was generally coherent and
allow for the possibility of randomness (110).

276
often.837 But when it comes to our interests here in establishing the likelihood that Jesus was

generally consistent in aims throughout the course of his ministry, we cannot proceed by forging

conceptual and thematic linkages in the extant Gospel tradition.838 Our analysis must go deeper

so that the forging of such linkages actually becomes possible, and that is a more challenging

task that requires a different approach.

A first attempt at this involves early Christian perceptions of Jesus, and particularly the

assumptions at play in the way that Jesus later followers told stories about his life. We have

already said that the collective Tendenz of the Gospels is to present the ministry of Jesus as a

unified whole, focused on Golgotha,839 and this indeed raises legitimate questions about their

reliability on the matter. But this presentation, I would propose, is not historically insignificant.

On the topic of the narrative plotlines of the Gospels in particular, Chapter 5.5 sampled

the ways that each Evangelist drives the narrative action forward to the cross.840 The mere weight

of attention paid to the last week in Jerusalemnearly one third of Mark, and one half of John

makes this plain. But herein is a striking fact. On the topic of the crucifixion, the Gospels protest

too much, and it is not difficult to see why: it was possible to view that denouement differently.

For some, insiders and outsiders alike, the ending in Jerusalem was a failure.841 It is no secret

that in the post-Easter preaching of the Church, the cross was a primary obstacle of Christian

837
See the thoughts of Matti Kankaanniemi, Mission as Reaction: Exhausted Jesus at the
Well of Sychar, in Byrskog and Hgerland, Mission of Jesus, 161-76 at 175-76.
838
Perrin, Rediscovering, goes no further than this, though he confidently asserts without
further argument Any division of the teaching of Jesus into various parts by subjects is an act of
violence against that teaching, which is a constantly interrelating and interlocking whole (109).
839
Cf. Wrede, Messianic Secret, 84.
840
See above pp. 226-27.
841
See Brendan Byrne, Failure: A New Testament Reflection, Way 29 (1989): 117-29.

277
missionizing to Jews (e.g. 1 Cor 1:23),842 for no one before Passover in 30/33 CE expected that

the Messiah would end his career under Romes thumb. It may well be that Jesus anticipated

rejection and execution in Jerusalem, and even have made some sense of it theologically before it

happened.843 But whatever his expectations, it cannot be denied that the disciples were caught off

guard by his arrest and some tried to prevent it violently in Gethsemane (to the dismay of

Matthew, Luke, and John).844 It is also almost certain that Jesus was betrayed by one of his

closest followers,845 which was surely a striking and unexpected turn of events.846 Moreover,

some of these disciples fled from Gethsemane and, after the crucifixion of Jesus, probably never

842
See discussion in Matthew Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language
in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012),
160-64.
843
See e.g. Raymond E. Brown, How Much did Jesus Know?A Survey of the Biblical
Evidence, CBQ 29 (1967): 315-45 at 323; Pesch, Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverstndnis,
103-09; Helmut Merklein, Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft (2nd ed.; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983), 131-44; McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 105-19; Allison,
Constructing Jesus, 427-33; Joel B. Green, The Death of Jesus, in Holmn and Porter,
Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 3:2383-2408 at 2403-07; Pitre, Jesus and the
Last Supper, 119-20, 409.
844
See Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the
(AYBRL; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 1:308-10. For a recent study that makes (too)
much of this, see Martin, Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous, 3-24.
845
Cf. James H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism (ABRL; New York: Doubleday,
1988), 14; John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the
Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995), 71 (He [Judas] is too
bad to be false).
846
The Gospels try to shirk this in different ways. Luke has Jesus pray all night before
selecting the twelve, so as to make clear that he did not make a mistake (6:12). John explains as
an editorial aside to his reader that Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not
believe, and who was the one that would betray him (6:64). Both of these Gospels also share the
tradition that Judas betrayed Jesus by Satans instigation (Luke 22:3; John 13:2), an idea perhaps
implied in Mark.

278
returned to the fold.847 The plotlines of the Gospels, therefore, are apologetic in one key respect:

they defend a particular view of Jesus ministry that upholds the cross as the true climax of his

activity, and they oppose competing views that would call that end an unexpected failure.848

There is another pertinent example. The Gospels disagree about when the mission to the

Gentiles began.849 That itself may not be that unexpected, but it is striking to note that in the

midst of the disagreement, all of the Gospels aim to show that that later mission to the Gentiles

(which they ultimately approve of in general) was not a change or deviation from Jesus own

intentions.850 They achieve this presentation in different ways. For Mark, the mission started

already during the ministry of Jesus (3:8; 5:20; 7:31; 11:17), albeit in muted form (7:24-27).

Matthew withholds the call for inclusion until after the crucifixion of Jesus (Matt 27:54; 28:19),

but foreshadows it in many ways (1:5; 4:15-16; 8:10-11; 24:14) so that the Great Commission is

best understood as a realization or fulfillment than a break from Jesus initial aims for the lost

As seems to be the implication of Matt 28:17: When they saw him (the risen Jesus),
847

they worshipped him; but some doubted. See discussion in Gerd Ldemann, Jesus after Two
Thousand Years: What He really Said and Did (Amherst: Prometheus, 2001), 22.
848
On the passion narrative in this respect see Barnabas Lindars, New Testament
Apologetic (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 18, 80-84; Wolfgang Reibold, Der lteste
Bericht ber den Tod Jesu: literarische Analyse und historische Kritik der
Passionsdarstellungen der Evangelien (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1994), 205-07; Joel
Marcus, Mark 8-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27A; New
Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009), 925; Gerd Theissen, Das Leiden und Sterben des
historischen Jesus und deren Transformation in der Passionsgeschichte, JCBS 10 (2012): 177-
201.
849
So Florian Wilk, Jesus und die Vlker in der Sicht der Synoptiker (BZNW 109;
Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2002), 238-86; Boris Repschinski, Die Heidenmission in den
synoptischen Evangelien, ZKT 130 (2008): 423-44.
850
So too Jerome, Comm. Matt. 2.15 (FC 117:183): He is not saying (in Matt 15:24, sent
to lost sheep of Israel) that he was not also sent to the Gentiles, but that he was sent first to Israel.
In that way the transference to the Gentiles would be just, since Israel did not receive the
Gospel.

279
sheep of the house of Israel.851 Luke also maintains a Jewish focus during the ministry of Jesus

(cf. 9:39 with Mark 5:20) with foreshadowing similar to Matthews, if not bolder (2:32; 3:6;

4:25-27; etc.).852 Luke abolishes the food laws only in Peters vision in Acts 10. In the Fourth

Gospel, Jesus anticipates a Gentile mission (10:16: I have sheep that do not belong to his fold. I

must bring them also), and experiences the firstfruits at the triumphal entry (12:20-21: some

Greeks at the festival seek Jesus).853 Thus, as with the crucifixion of Jesus, the Evangelists

here betray awareness of the problem of unexpected outcome and the dilemma of change in

theological message. Their narratives preempt any such criticism.854

The treatment of the crucifixion of Jesus and the Gentile mission in the Gospels are

relevant to the issue of a Galilean crisis because we do not find anything in the Gospel plotline

that is similarly responsive or apologetical about different readings of the Galilean ministry. It

is apparent that Paul had to defend himself against the charge that he was a theological flip

851
Compelling on this point is the thesis of Matthias Konradt, Israel, Kirche, und die
Volker im Mattausevangelium (WUNT 215; Tbingen: Mohr, 2007).
852
So the thesis of T. J. Lane, Luke and the Gentile Mission: Gospel Anticipates Acts
(Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1996). See also Elizabeth V. Dowling, To the Ends of the Earth:
Attitudes to Gentiles in Luke-Acts, in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity (eds. David C. Sim and James S. McLaren; LNTS 499; London; New York: T & T
Clark, 2013), 191-208 at 192-201.
853
On this latter text esp. see Mary L. Coloe, Gentiles in the Gospel of John: Narrative
PossibilitiesJohn 12:12-43, in Sim and McLaren, Attitudes to Gentiles, 209-23.
854
It is noteworthy that most of these attempts to foreshadow the later Gentile mission
are of very dubious historicity, no doubt because there surely was a significant development in
movement toward the Gentiles that was not read straight out of Jesus message. On development
regarding the Gentile mission see Strauss, Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 300-03; Charles
Guignebert, Jesus (trans. S. H. Hooke; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1935 [orig. 1933]), 317-18;
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 218-21; Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 251, 315; Dunn,
Jesus Remembered, 537-39; Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 389-90.

280
flopper,855 but nowhere do we suspect that the Gospels are reacting to embarrassing claims that

Jesus transformed his message about the kingdom of God. The Gospels, unlike the Quran,

contain no rationalizations along the lines of Sura 2:106: Whenever We abrogate a verse or

cause it to be forgotten, We exchange it with a better or similar one; do you not know that God

can do anything?856 We do not find criticism, like Plutarchs of Zeno, of inconsistency or

incoherence in his teaching.857 On the issue of criticism in particular, it cannot be said that we

fail to find it because the Gospels omit all reproach levelled at Jesus. To the contrary, they

preserve a good deal of it: Jesus was considered league with Satan (Mark 3:22 and par.),

possessed by a demon (John 8:48), a glutton and drunkard (Q 7:34), a false-prophet (Mark

15:29 and par.; Luke 22:64), among much else.858 These criticisms not only fail to imply some

855
Cf. 1 Cor 9:19-23; 2 Cor 1:17 (ready to say yes, yes and no, no at the same
time). The Galatians were apparently aware and wary of the fact that Paul had formerly
preached circumcision (Gal 5:11). For an argument that this preaching of circumcision was
characteristic of Pauls early ministry as a Christ-follower, and thus Paul had some dramatic
change of mind on this topic, see Douglas Campbell, Galatians 5.11: Evidence of an Early Law-
observant Mission by Paul? NTS 57 (2011): 325-347.
856
See also 16:101; 25:32 (The unbelievers say: If only the Quran had come down to
him all at once!); 17:106 (We have fragmented this Quran so that you recite it to the people
more slowly). There are different perspectives on drinking and gambling in 2:219, 4:43, and
5:90, and on widows at 2:234, 240 and 2:180, 4:11-12, and 65:4-7. For exegetical devices to
explain such contradictions and other matters, see Herbert Berg, The Development of Exegesis in
Early Islam: The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period (Richmond:
Curzon Press, 2000), 141-72; Jane Dammen McAuliffe, The Tasks and Traditions of
Interpretation, in The Cambridge Companion to the Qurn (ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 181-209 at 184-85 (on common questions like:
was this recitation revealed in Mecca or Medina, or, what prompted it?); Michel Cuypers, The
Composition of the Quran: Rhetorical Analysis (trans. Jerry Ryan; London et al.: Bloomsbury,
2015), 1-4.
857
De stoicorum repugnantiis, 7-10.
858
Cf. Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of
Labels in Matthew (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1998); Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, eds.,
Who do My Opponents Say that I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations Against the Historical
Jesus (LNTS 327; London: T & T Clark, 2008).

281
inconsistency in message, they assume that one could summarize what Jesus was up to with

insults that generalize his activity.

This insight is important because it means that, when using the Gospels as sources for

reconstructing the course of Jesus career, to conclude that Jesus was largely consistent in aims

does not require us to trust their theological plotlines that point toward Golgotha. The idea is that

the Gospels betray no awareness of, or anxiety about, significant change in Jesus message in the

Galilee.

One could object at this point that the argument fails to account for the lack of our

evidence, precisely as stressed in the section above. But another consideration suggests that the

Evangelists do not mislead us here: the presuppositions at play in the transmission of Gospel

tradition. Chapter 5 affirmed the insight of the form critics that the Gospel frameworks are

unreliable bases on which to reconstruct the career of Jesus. The primary evidence for this view

is the incontestable fact that the Evangelists freely change the order of events in their source

material. There is more to be said here, however. It is, in fact, the very unhistorical freeness with

which the Gospels reorganize eachother that suggests early Christians did not remember (or try

to forget) any notable crisis in Jesus Galilean ministry. All of the Synoptics have reorganized

their sources (both oral and written) with attention to matters of audience, reception, and the

theological emphases of the teaching of Jesus.859 These are all matters that have been important

in the crisis theory. But not one of these redactional processes (which may at times be aware of

other oral retellings of the Jesus story, and hence not purely redactional)860 function to create

859
Cf. Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday,
1997), 111-22; Martin Ebner and Stefan Schreiber, eds., Einleitung in das Neue Testament
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 67-228.
860
See here Dunn, Altering the Default Setting, Oral Gospel Tradition, 48-49, 63-66,
74-79.

282
the impression of consistency or coherence in Jesus teaching, or to downplay or eliminate some

idea that Jesus teaching changed.861 Those issues are not on the radar. Routine changes to the

audience of Jesus teaching,862 as well as the ordering and content of that teaching,863 do not have

as their concern the historical question of how that teaching unfolded. The interest is rather a

theological question of what that teaching entailed and required of his followers.864 In sum, the

manifold ways that the Evangelists edit, update, and criticize their sources leave no reason to

think that they were even aware of counter-claims about change of mind in Jesus ministry.865

And this is to grant, of course, that there was performative diversity at the start, see
861

Kloppenborg, The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus, 334.
862
See Schmidt, Der Rahmen, 258.
863
Birger Gerhardsson, Illuminating the Kingdom: Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic
Gospels, in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (ed. Henry Wansbrough; JSNTSup 64;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 266-309.
864
See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 238 (italics orig.): The variations in the reteaching
indicate a readiness to group material differently, to adapt or develop it, and to draw further
lessons from it, consistent with the tradition of initial impact made by Jesus himself and in the
light of the developing circumstances of the churches which treasured the teaching.the
tradition was living tradition
865
It would not do to say that the lack of awareness is because the Gospel tradition was
transmitted episodically before the written Gospels, and thus nobody was interested in telling
stories of Jesus life before this point. On the narrative nature of pre-written Gospel tradition, see
C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (New York; Evanston: Harper &
Row, 1962), 13-35; Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, 24; James D. G. Dunn,
Jesus-tradition in Paul, in Chilton and Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus, 155-78 (at 156-57:
it would be surprising if those who claimed to have put their faith in this Christ were not a little
curious about the character and content of his life and ministry prior to his death); Jens
Schrter, From Jesus to the New Testament: Early Christian Theology and the Origin of the New
Testament Canon (trans. Wayne Coppins; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013 [orig. 2007]),
91, 121-22; idem, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienberlieferung in
Markus, Q und Thomas (WMANT 76; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997), 439-51
(on stories of Jesus starting with John the Baptist). There have also been subsequent defenses of
C. H. Dodds famous position, though with slightly different arguments: Otto A. Piper, The
Origin of the Gospel Pattern, JBL 78 (1959): 115-24; Richard Bauckham, Kergymatic
Summaries in the Speeches of Acts, in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (ed.
Ben Witherington III; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 185-217. I find the
interesting argument of Stephen Hultgren, Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study
283
 It is, moreover, the presupposition that Jesus message was consistent on the whole that

allowed for the kinds of reorganizations that we do find. Matthew can create the Sermon on the

Mount out of isolated sayings and blocks of tradition from Q and other sources because he

believes that Jesus was about the same task, whenever or wherever he may have said what he

said. He assumes that; the Sermon has no interest in asserting it.866 The same viewpoint

undergirds collections of Jesus sayings by catchword or common theme, such as we find in Mark

4:21-25, 9:42-50; Q 12:33-34, 39-40; Luke 11:33-35; and other places.867 This must have

happened very early, as some of these collections may assume an Aramaic Vorlage.868 In

addition, it is evident that early Christians spliced originally independent parables together (e.g.

Matt 22:1-14; Luke 6:43-45, 13:24-30),869 and interpreted certain teachings of Jesus by means of

other teachings. For instance, Matthew explains the analogy of the good and the bad tree with the

saying about the good and the evil treasure (12:33-37); Mark unravels the significance of the

bridegrooms presence with the analogies of cloaks and wineskins (2:18-22); and Luke clarifies

the law and the prophets were until John with it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away

of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative (BZNW 113; Berlin; New York:
de Gruyter, 2002), for a common, coherent, and primitive narrative-kergymatic framework
behind the canonical Gospels that ran from the baptism of Jesus to his passion, death, and
resurrection (310) a helpful corrective to minimalist understandings on the pre-written tradition,
but ultimately not compelling in the details.
866
Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 337, does not mention this important fact
when discussing the binding the whole of the material into a coherent presentation
867
Cf. Dieter Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprche bei den Synoptikern (Wrzburg:
Echter, 1977), 147-51, 160-63, 184-88; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 90-92 (on coherent or
topical groupings); Armand Puig i Trrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey: Studies on the
Historical Jesus (WUNT 288; Tbingen: Mohr, 2010), 28-29; Schrter, From Jesus to the New
Testament, 88.
868
Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1967 [orig. 1946]).
869
Cf. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 94-96.

284
than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped (16:16-17).870 Even the sporadic and

somewhat ad hoc appearance of Jesus tradition in Pauls epistles show no concern to situate each

logion in a particular context in the ministry, for he assumes that word(s) of the Lord are a

coherent enough body of material that he can even regard the lack of some saying (e.g. 1 Cor

7:25: I have no command of the Lord) to be a relevant consideration.871

There is nothing inevitable about any of this. Graham Stanton wrote:

Familiarity with the canonical gospels can easily blind us to their distinctive features.
The early church need not have retained traditions about Jesus in the form in which they
have come down to us: the traditions might well have looked rather more like Pirqe
Aboth or the Gospel of Thomas than in fact they do. The gospels are kergymatic
documents, but their deeply embedded historical and biographical stamp is so
unexpected against the background of comparable ancient documents that we are left
with a problem: Why do the traditions about Jesus take this form?872

Stanton was interested in the biographical nature of the Gospels in penning this statement, yet

his insight applies for our focus here as well. We can imagine that Christians had pious reasons

to wish that Jesus, as their one Teacher, the Messiah (Matt 23:10), did not abandon one course

to take up another. But if, in fact, he did, we should expect to find some memory refraction in

this direction, even should it be an attempt to subvert that disconcerting memory.873 The Gospels,

taken together, affirm that stories about Jesus were important (hence their narrative structure),

but do not indicate there was any one way to tell the story (hence their dramatic
870
Cf. S. Llewelyn, The Traditionsgeschichte of Matt. 11:12-13, par: Luke 16:16, NovT
36 (1994): 330-49.
871
For a discussion of the Jesus tradition in Paul and secondary literature, see David E.
Aune, Jesus Tradition and the Pauline Letters, in Jesus, Gospel Tradition and Paul in the
Context of Jewish and Greco-Roman Antiquity (WUNT 303; Tbingen: Mohr, 2013), 303-30.
872
Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, 136.
873
This language is from Le Donne, Historiographical Jesus, 13: the multiple (and
sometimes contradictory) interpretations of Jesus found in the Gospels allow the historian to
chart trajectories of memory refraction that have been propelled forward by the initial perception
of Jesus by his contemporaries.

285
reorganizations).874 They disagree, at times radically so, on the order of events and the meaning

of those events. But as to asserting or correcting the charge of change of mind or mission, they

leave nothing, and that seems also to be the case for the tradition they inherited. That interpretive

posture requires some historical explanation.875

A comparison with the treatment of Muhammads recitations by the early Muslim

community might provide some perspective on these facts. The claim even during Muhammads

lifetime was that he, as the Messenger of God, was the passive recipient of Gods very speech.

The recitations were not Muhammads own ideas but rather messages delivered from Allah.

Given such claims, which are unlike what early Christians said about the teaching of Jesus, it is

clear that there would be a natural push to synchronize the recitations irrespective of the

historical time and place in which Muhammad received them. And this in fact happened. The

Quran was soon organized according to the length of the Suras rather than historical situation.876

But still, despite the high claims about Muhammads recitations and their divine origin, there

were early attempts in the tafsir tradition to divine the particular historical contexts of the

recitations, and this happened because it was well known that Muhammads life circumstances

had changed so substantially: from the young and despised poet in Mecca, to the leader of his

874
This is true also on the micro-level, as attention to original wording does not seem
to have been a major concern, at least for certain parts of the tradition. See here the helpful
concept of originating structure (rather than original words) in Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear
Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989),
18-19.
875
The frequent reminder of proponents of the so-called Memory Approach that the
Gospels interpretations must be accounted for is apropos here. Cf. Rodrguez, Authenticating
Criteria, 152-67; Chris Keith, Memory and Authenticity: Jesus Tradition and What Really
Happened, ZNW 102 (2011): 155-77.
On this complicated process, see Claude Gilliot, Creation of a Fixed Text, in
876

McAuliffe, Cambridge Companion to the Qurn, 41-58.

286
Companions in Medina, to at last the champion of Mecca and the Kaba.877 We do not find such

attempts in the early Christian movement, even though, we can presume, the urge to synchronize

the teachings of Muhammad would have been more pressing than for the teachings of Jesus.

These observations about early Christian perceptions are inferential, to be sure, and have

nothing definitive to say about the life of Jesus. But they are important and overlooked by

contemporary scholarship. The point is this: not only was Jesus remembered to have been

consistent in his message, early Christians assumed that and did not argue for it, despite the fact

that early Christian groups held diverse and disagreeing perspectives on what the message of

Jesus was all about. Moreover, and in contrast to the way that the canonical Gospels are careful

to weave the death of Jesus into his larger kingdom praxis, they betray no reaction to or even

knowledge of alterantive scenarios about change of mind in the Galilean ministry. That

interpretive presupposition, we might say, requires a historical explanation, and is not just a

hermeneutical obstruction.

6.3. JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST

Jesus relationship to his forerunner affords more pointed reasons to believe that Jesus message

was more consistent than some crisis scenarios would presume.

There is no reason to depart from the consensus of scholarship that Jesus was baptized by

John, which indicates that, at least initially, Jesus found Johns eschatological teachings

877
For more on the life of Muhammad see F. E. Peters, Jesus & Muhammad: Parallel
Tracks, Parallel Lives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 29-32, 74-75, 82, 113-23, 137-
38, 155. On the assemblage of the Quran and interest in the occasions of revelation (asbb al-
nuzl), see Theodor Nldeke et al., The History of the Qurn (ed. and trans. Wolfgang H. Behn;
Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013), 48-54, 213-34, 320-30, 361-62.

287
attractive.878 We do not know the whole of Johns message, but we do know at the very least that

he expected the imminent judgment and called for repentance in light of it.879 The baptism of

Jesus is important for this consistency question because all our sources agreeand in some cases

begrudingly sothat Jesus ministry emerged out of the baptizing activity of John, and even

may have been contemporaneous with it for some time (John 3:22-24). As such, Jesus affiliation

with the Baptist is clearly what Bas van Og has termed a formative event.880 If there were

changes in Jesus mindset, they would have been deviations from what he initially held in

common with the Baptist.

What we do not find is any clear indication that Jesus self-consciously departed from

Johns message. The evidence rather indicates that there was much in common between the two

men even after Jesus parted ways with John, and that the Baptist continued to influence Jesus up

to the end of his life.881 Initial evidence in support of this contention has already been mustered

in an important essay by Dale Allison. Allison points to three particular points of continuity

between John and Jesus. The first is the notion that simply being a descendant of Abraham is

878
Robert L. Webb, Jesus Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications, BBR 10 (2000):
261-309.
879
Cf. Carl H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York; London: Charles Scribners Sons,
1951), 34-64; G. E. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1962), 31-44; Josef Ernst, Johannes der Tufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte
(Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1989), 268-348; Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and
Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study (JSOT 62; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 183-
205; Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 27-39; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 362-71; Joan E.
Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1997), 132.
880
See van Os, Psychological Analyses and the Historical Jesus, 23.
881
For insights on approach and method in discussion of Jesus relation to John, see
Robert L. Webb, Methodological Reflections on John the Baptizers Influence on Jesus, in
Charlesworth and Rhea, Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions, 769-801.

288
insufficient to enter the world to come (Matt 3:9//Luke 3:8; and Mark 10:15).882 The second is a

large stock of shared images between Jesus and John, such as the notion of bearing fruit (Matt

3:8-9//Luke 3:8; cf. Matt 7:16-21; 12:33-35// Luke 6:43-45), cutting down trees (Matt 3:10//Luke

3:9; cf. Luke 13:6-9), being thrown into judgment (Matt 3:10//Luke 3:9; cf. Matt 13:40; Mark

9:47-50), eschatological fire (Matt 3:11//Luke 3:16; cf. Luke 12:49-50), and harvest motifs

(Matt 3:12//Luke 3:17; cf. Matt 9:37-38//Luke 10:2; Matt 13:24-30; Mark 4:1-9; etc.).883 Third is

Johns expectation for the coming one and Jesus claim, in Q 7:18-32, to be that figure.884

Given the fact of Jesus baptism by John and, probably, additional association with him before

and/or after, it is reasonable to assume that such seeming points of contact are not coincidence

but rather suggest extensive borrowing of the former from the latter. To Allisons list one could

also add the New Exodus typology that runs parallel in both Jesus and Johns ministries (for

John, in particular: baptism by the Jordan, calls for repentance)885 and also, as I have argued

elsewhere, the expectation for the ingathering of the exiles that Johns use of Isaiah 40

882
Allison, Constructing Jesus, 213-16.
883
Allison, Constructing Jesus, 216-18.
884
Allison, Constructing Jesus, 219. The authenticity of the prediction of a (human)
coming one has been challenged by some. For a review of interpretive options see W. D. Davies
and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint
Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988-97), 1:312-14. But in my view Strauss,
Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 216, still compels: the appearance of Jesus is made more
comprehensible by the supposition, that John had introduced the idea of the proximity of the
Messiahs kingdom.
885
Cf. the excellent essay by Colin Brown, What Was John the Baptist Doing? BBR 7
(1997): 37-50. See also W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1974), 36-48; 318-20; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 116-20; Jeremy M. Hutton,
Topography, Biblical Traditions, and Reflections on Johns Baptism of Jesus, in Charlesworth
and Rhea, Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions, 149-77.

289
anticipates and that Jesus call of the Twelve appears to inaugurate.886 All of these parallels,

coupled with the clear statements of Jesus approval of John throughout the tradition (e.g. the

greatest born of women at Q 7:28), suggest that traditions some have identified as points of

dissimilarity to John (esp. the proclamation of the Kingdom of God, and Jesus working

miracles), were understood by the Jesus movement as fulfillments of and/or expansions on

Johns ministry.887

Neither Allisons case nor these further examples demonstrate continuity throughout the

ministry of Jesus itself. Synchronic sampling from the tradition cannot, in this case, tell us much

about consistency. There are additional considerations, however, that probably do.

Mark records a rumor about Jesus activity as follows:

And King Herod heard, for Jesus name had become known. And he was saying, John
the Baptizer has been raised from the dead, and on this account the powers are at work in
him. But others said that he is Elijah, and others that he is a prophet, as one of the
prophets. But after Herod heard he kept saying, This is John, whom I beheaded. He was
raised from the dead. (Mark 6:14-15; cf. Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9)

This rumor888 has theological benefit for the Evangelists (e.g. to highlight the blindness of Herod

and others on the outside [cf. 4:11]), and it is not clear how early Christians would be privy to

886
Tucker S. Ferda, John the Baptist, Isaiah 40, and the Ingathering of the Exiles, JSHJ
10 (2012): 154-88. On Jesus hope for ingathering, see John P. Meier, Jesus, the Twelve, and
the Restoration of Israel, in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives
(JSJSup 72; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001), 365-404; Allison, Constructing Jesus, 42-43, 71-76.
887
Contra John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 47-48. See Meyer, Christus Faber, 30-33; Flusser, Jesus, 48-53;
Taylor, Immerser, 303.
888
Rawlinson, St. Mark, 82; D. M. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (New York: Seabury
Press, 1968), 172-73; Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:468; Meier,
Companions and Competitors, 564.

290
Herods personal feelings on this matter.889 But it is difficult to see early Christians making up

this rumor, and it stands alongside others (e.g. that Jesus was Elijah or one of the prophets) that

likely have some historical traction in the ministry of Jesus.890 The connection also emerges

elsewhere (cf. Mark 8:26-27: Who do people say that I am?...John the Baptist). Significant for

our purposes is what this rumor implies about Jesus relationship with John the Baptist. The

rumor does not attest directly to any known apprenticeship of Jesus to John, but rather assumes

that the profile of Jesus ministry was similar enough to Johns that one could wonder if the

former was a reincarnation of the latter.891 The rumor may or may not imply that John himself

worked miracles;892 but even if not, in the absence of other links between these men, there is no

reason to think specifically of John when trying to make sense of Jesus miracle working

activity. The rumor is nothing but a popular recognition of some level of continuity between the

ministries of these two figures, and this, importantly, after John had been arrested and executed.

Also relevant is the so-called Question of Authority (Mark 11:27-33 and par.). As the

temple elite question Jesus about his authority to do these things (e.g., in Marks context, his

889
Cf. Rawlinson, St. Mark, 82. Though, possibly, Joanna is relevant here, as mentioned
in Luke 8:3, since she was the wife of Herods steward, Chuza. Note also that, according to Acts
13:1, a certain Manaean was associated with the Jesus movement, and he was a member of the
court of Herod.
890
So Knut Backhaus, Die Jngerkreise des Tufers Johannes: Eine Studie zu den
religionsgeschichtlichen Ursprngen des Christentums (PTS 19; Paderborn: Schningh, 1991),
89-95.
891
Origen, Comm. Jo. 6.30, thought that Jesus and John looked alike, and that is why the
people misidentified him.
892
Bultmann, History, 24: does not Mk. 6.14 imply that reports of the Baptists miracles
were current? For a recent investigation and affirmative answer to Bultmanns query, see the
forthcoming article of Daniel Frayer-Griggs, More than a Prophet: Echoes of Exorcism in
Markan and Matthean Baptist Traditions, in Matthew and Mark across Perspectives (eds.
Kristian Bendoraitis and Nijay Gupta; LNTS 224; Bloomsbury: T & T Clark, 2016).

291
temple action, which is historically probable; cf. John 2:18),893 Jesus appeals to the baptism of

John (Mark 11:30).894 Obviously the appeal to somehow functions

to affirm that Jesus does, in fact, have the authority to do these things. The meaning is obscure,

and intentionally so it seems.895 But regardless of the precise import, the key point is that the

appeal to John here makes no sense had Jesus at some point broken from Johns vision. To the

contrary, it assumes that, even at the very end of his ministry,896 John had some bearing on what

Jesus continued to do.

893
Cf. Jrgen Roloff, Das Kergyma und der irdische Jesus (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1970), 91-92; William Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A
Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Marks Gospel and its
Relation to the Cleansing of the Temple Tradition (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 39-49 esp. at
47. It has been argued that the Question of Authority was once part of a pre-Markan collection of
conflict stories (cf. Mark 2:1-3:6). See Martin Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgesprche (Berlin:
Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1921), 16-36, 107-08, 113-14.
894
A main reason why critics contend early Christians would not have invented this
exchange. Cf. C. S. Mann, The Gospel According to St. Mark (AB 27; New York: Doubleday,
1986), 457; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and
Notes (2 vols.; AB 28-28A; New York: Doubleday, 1981-85), 2:1272-73; Konrad Huber, Jesus
in Auseinandersetzung: exegetische Untersuchungen zu den sogenannten Jerusalemer
Streitgesprchen des Markusevangeliums im Blick auf ihre christologischen Implikationen (FB
75; Wrzburg: Echter, 1995), 112-13; Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 163-67. See also
Marcus, Mark 8-16, 798-99; Collins, Mark, 538-39.
895
A number of proposals have been suggested (see other references in Pesch, Das
Markusevangelium, 2:213): Jesus claims the same divine authority John had in baptizing, so
Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 19-20; Jesus points to the common practice of
baptism that he shared with John, so Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 163-167; Jesus
appeals to John as Elijah to indicate he is the Messiah, so Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God,
495-497; Jesus appeals to John as Elijah, which means that he is like Elisha, so Joel Marcus,
John the Baptist and Jesus, in Christianity in the Beginning (vol. 1 of When Judaism and
Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini; eds. Daniel Harrington, Alan J.
Avery-Peck, and Jacob Neusner; JSJSup 85; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003), 179-97.
896
Contra Jerome Murphy-OConnor, Jesus and the Money Changers (Mark 11:15-17;
John 2:13-17), RB 107 (2000): 42-55 at 53-54 (the episode occurred early in Jesus life while he
was still associated with the Baptist movement).

292
 Of course, Jesus could have continued Johns eschatological message, resembled him in

some form in the public eye, and even recalled Johns ministry to defend his own, and still

changed his mind on notable topics.897 But these indications that Jesus took up Johns cause

throughout the remainder of the ministry are important because they show that those particular

features of the Jesus tradition that some have thought instigators of crisis or change of mind are

less evidently so. That is, because of Jesus starting point with John, and because of the general

points of continuity with John that we find throughout his career, we can grasp Jesus

announcement of judgment, opposition to certain Jewish leaders, and even expectation of death

without appeal to a Galilean crisis or other hypothesis about change of mind. These aspects of

the Jesus tradition make the most sense on one of two levels: either as specific expectations that

Jesus assumed as he began his autonomous ministry, or as general aspects of a theological

framework that Jesus had inherited from John.

On judgment, it cannot be denied that an important aspect of Johns baptismal ministry

was warning people of the nearness of Gods visitation, as the imminence of that event

motivates the urgency of Johns activities (e.g. the axe is already laid at the foot of the tree!).

And as countless studies have shown, the profile of Johns judgment proclamation is hardly an

innovation in Jewish tradition.898 Jesus, in giving voice to the same expectations in his ministry,

897
Apropos is the recent observation by Kari Syreeni, From Johns Ministry to the
Mission of Jesus: The Question of Continuity and Change in a Psychological Perspective, in
Byrskog and Hgerland, Mission of Jesus, 77-92 at 77: continuity in no way precludes change.
The reconstruction of Johns message after his arrest that Syreeni has in mind may be correct
(though he ventures into total speculation; see 88-89, 91) and would not challenge the
conclusions drawn here.
898
Cf. Ernst, Johannes der Tufer, 300-08; Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 190-93; Meier,
Mentor, Message and Miracles, 28-40; Christian Stettler, Das letzte Gericht: Studien zur
Endgerichtserwartung von den Schriftpropheten bis Jesus (WUNT 299; Tbingen: Mohr, 2011),
185-97.

293
could not be fundamentally different, and thus his announcement of judgment was not a product

of rejection but rather part of a larger theological framework. To use Schweitzers terminology,

the message of judgment is essential to Jesus eschatological dogma, and as such it invariably

helped organize his experience; it did not result from his experience. The approaching judgment

of God, one could say, was the indicative that created the imperative of his message.899 The

message of the Baptist and Jesus resembled that of Paul in Thessalonica (to paraphrase): The

judgment is coming. Therefore turn to God, put your trust in Jesus, and you will be saved from

the wrath (cf. 1 Thess 1:9-10).900 Jesus experience of rejection may have intensified his

message or tone in regard to the judgment (discussed more below), but in light of Jesus Jewish

background, and especially in light of his association with the Baptist, we can confidently say

that the rejection itself did not create the expectation.901

The activities of the Baptist also make it improbable that Jesus began his ministry with

rosy hopes that the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders would accept him and his message with

open arms. While some of Jesus polemical words against the Pharisees and others probably

reflect particular issues that arose during his ministry (discussed in the next chapter), the Baptist

already had some contention of his own. We find the following in the tradition:

899
One could say that this view is taken to an extreme in the treatment of Becker, Jesus
of Nazareth, who argued that John the Baptist believed Israel was lost (die Verlorenheit
Israels) and that judgment was inevitable. Jesus, unlike John, offered a way out: the
proclamation of the Kingdom began the process of salvation for lost Israel. See Scobie, John the
Baptist, 82-83.
Cf. Helmut Merklein, Die Umkehrpredigt bei Johannes dem Tufer und Jesus von
900

Nazaret, BZ 25 (1981): 29-41 at 33.

901
Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, briefly addressed the question of where Jesus judgment
proclamation came from. He offered three suggestions: the ubiquity of the motif in Jewish
eschatology, the message of the Baptizer, and Jesus being rejected by the people. His conclusion,
that each of these three possibilities has an aspect of truth (322), is compelling.

294
 John 3:25: Now a debate () about purification arose between Johns
disciples and a Jew.902

Q 3:7-9: John said [Luke: to the crowds; Matt: to the Pharisees and Sadducees]
You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come!

Q 7:33: the same group that accused Jesus of being a glutton and drunkard and
a friend of tax collectors and sinners said that John has a demon.

Mark 9:11-13: the scribes say that Elijah will restore all things, but John the
Baptist was rejected by them.

Mark 11:27-33: rejection of John by the chief priests and scribes is the subtext to
Jesus reply in the Question of Authority.

Mark 12:1-12: John was rejected by the tenants of the vineyard as were the other
prophets, as well as the owners own son.

Matt 21:28-32: the tax collectors and prostitutes will go ahead of chief priests
and elders because John came in the way of righteousness, and you did not
believe him.

It could be that only a fraction of these tradents accurately capture the antagonism that existed

between John and these groups, and the particular identities of the opponents shift in accordance

with the Evangelists preferences.903 One could see why early Christians, anxious about the fact

that Jesus was by and large rejected by the religiously well to do, was preceded in ministry by

John who found the same reception. But there must have been some friction here historically (cf.

Luke 7:30).904 John proclaimed that failure to submit to his baptism put one at risk of divine

902
Reconstructing John 3:25 is difficult; I find this the most plausible.
903
On this see Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 52-54.
904
Matthews Pharisees and Sadducees may well be redactional; so Meier, Mentor,
Message, and Miracles, 30. Pace Ben Witherington III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1990), 39-40. But I doubt Q 3:7-12 was targeted at Johns sympathizers. On
opposition to John, see Saunders, Jesus in the Gospels, 57; Webb, John the Baptizer and
Prophet, 370-72; Michael Tilly, Johannes der Tufer und die Biographie der Propheten: die
synoptische Tuferberlieferung und das jdische Prophetenbild zur Zeit des Tufers (BZANT
7; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994), 224-35; Taylor, Immerser, 199-201 (on the Pharisees).

295
judgment, and there can be no doubt that the religious elite in Jerusalem were among those who

massively failed to heed his call.905 Claims that John set up his baptism as a rival to the temple

cult are, to my mind, unsubstantiated.906 But from the perspective of outsiders, and no less

outsiders who were the heirs to the upkeep and maintenance of the temple, Johns ministry was

nothing more than a populist movement along the lines of similar such movements in the first

century mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 20.97-98; War 2.258-60 [Ant. 20.167-8]; War 2.261-63

[Ant. 20.169-71]; Ant. 20.188; War 6.437-50).907 It is doubtful that the religious establishment in

Jerusalem cared much about what John was doing, and if at all it was concern that his movement

could spur a revolution (which was precisely Antipass worry as well). It is equally doubtful that

Pharisees were flocking to the Jordan out of genuine interest in what John had to say.

It cannot be, then, that Jesus began his ministry with a tabula rasa about these groups that

he would, according to numerous Gospel stories, eventually come into conflict with. So too, it

cannot be that conflict with any of these groups would catch him by surprise or itself cause some

crisis of confidence. What else should we expect, if indeed his work arose out of a preexisting

movement that had already clashed with the religious learned and leaders of first century

Judaism?

905
Hence Kraeling, John the Baptist, 48-49, may be wrong to assert flatly that Q 3:7-12
was intended for the priestly aristocracy, but his general point cannot be easily discounted. Cf.
Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet, 175-78, on John targeting the priestly aristocracy.
906
Cf. Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 116; Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet, 203-06;
Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 210; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 359. In any case, to my
mind Taylor, Immerser, 111, and Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, 190-92, go too far in the other
direction by claiming John demanded his hearers go offer the requisite sacrifices in the temple.
907
Cf. P. W. Barnett, The Jewish Sign ProphetsA.D. 40-70Their Intentions and
Origin, NTS 27 (1981): 679-697; Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple
Jewish Palestine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 114-44.

296
 One final and related point. Not only should Johns ministry have prepared Jesus for

opposition and rejection, but Jesus evidently had heard of Johns arrest and execution. In

multiple Gospels, Johns arrest is an important trigger for Jesus entry into the Galilee (Mark

1:14; Matt 4:12; cf. John 3:22-24). All of this has been much studied. For our topic, however, the

significance is this: Johns arrest and execution leave little chance that the possibility of Jesus

own death would have created a crisis in his mind.908 It could be that the external course of his

ministry must have compelled Jesus to reckon with the possibility of a violent death.909 But for

Jesus to continue or begin an autonomous ministry after Johns death, to repeat themes in the

Baptists message, and perhaps to intensify some of those themes via imitations to be some sort

of messianic figure, was a risky move. This is not to say that Jesus had everything planned out

ahead of time.910 Ben Meyers assessment is reasonable that, while Jesus had always reckoned

908
Cf. here Rudolf Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man: A Study in the History
of Religion (trans. Floyd V. Filson and Bertram Lee-Woolf; rev. ed.; Redhill: Lutterworth Press,
1943 [orig. 1934]), 247-48; Augustin George, Comment Jsus a-t-il percu sa propre mort?
LumVie 20 (1971): 34-59 at 49; Oberlinner, Todeserwartung und Todesgewiheit Jesu, 83
(Entscheidung fhrt notwendig zur Scheidung); Joachim Gnilka, Wie urteilte Jesus ber
seinen Tod?, in Der Tod Jesu: Deutungen im Neuen Testament (eds. Johannes Beutler and Karl
Kertelge; QD 74; Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 13-50; Heinz Schrmann, Wie hat Jesus seinen Tod
bestanden und verstanden? Eine methodenkritische Bessinung, in Orientierung an Jesus, 325-
63 at 334-35; idem, Jesus, Gestalt und Geheimnis, 161-62 (Zu behaupten ist, was auch in der
Kritik kaum je bestritten, nur von Skeptikern in Frage gestellt wird, da Jesus angesichts dieses
seines Engagements mit der Mglichkeit eines gewaltsamen Todes realistisch rechnen mute
undim Dialog mit der Geschichteam Ende [sptestens beim letzten Mahl] sein Martyrium
auch fr hchst wahrscheinlich oder fr gegeben halten konnte.). See also McKnight, Jesus and
His Death, 90-91.
909
Jeremias, Proclamation of Jesus, 278-79. That seems preferrable to the thesis of Oscar
Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1959), 67 (Jesus knew
from the time of his bapism the whole plan of salvation, including his death as Gods servant).
910
Cf. Schrmann, Jesus, Gestalt und Geheimnis, 159. Alexander Wedderburn, The
Death of Jesus: Some Reflections on Jesus-Traditions and Paul (WUNT 299; Tbingen: Mohr,
2013) has argued that different attempts to make theological sense of Jesus fate reflect Jesus
own lack of clarity about it, since he left his followers with seeming tensions in outlook: e.g.
self-surrender in Gethsemane, the cry of dereliction.

297
with the possibility of death, it became more solidly impressed throughout the ministry. 911

Moreover, good arguments can be made that Jesus hoped for an alternative outcome in Jerusalem

during his final Passover.912 Given the eschatological connotations of Jesus triumphal entry and

temple actionespecially if both were staged in light of the final chapters of Zechariah (e.g. 9:9-

17 and 14:1-9)it may have been Jesus sincere wish that the Kingdom of God will be

realized.913 Even here, however, the words of Benjamin Bacon a century ago would still apply:

He did not go up to Jerusalem in order to be crucified, however ready, if need be, to meet

crucifixion.914

911
Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 252. Cf. Bousset, Jesus, 14; Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth,
155.
912
For Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 333, to think Jesus went to Jerusalem with a death
wish is weird. See also here Loisy, who claimed it is historically and psychologically absurd
to contend that Jesus expected the kind of outcome in Jerusalem that happened. See Hoffmann,
Les vies de Jsus, 125-26. It may be that the hope Luke assigns to the followers of Jesuse.g.
(because Jesus) was near Jerusalemthey supposed the kingdom of God was to appear
immediately (19:11)actually captures what the historical Jesus had expected to occur. Cf.
Hiers, Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 73-74; Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, 244-45,
251, 257 (Jesus had predicted the kingdom would come on the Passover); Allison, Jesus of
Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet, 138; Per Bilde, The Originality of Jesus: A Critical Discussion
and Comparative Attempt (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 150-51.
913
This phrase from Dibelius, Jesus, 62. Important for this question is the interpretation
of Mark 14:25 (Amen I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I drink it
new in the kingdom of God). The saying can express (a) Jesus expects the kingdom to arrive in
the near future (see Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [3rd ed.; London: SCM,
1966 (orig. 1935)], 207-18; Heirs, Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 96-97); (b) Jesus
here anticipates his imminent death and predicts a reunion with his disciples (Davies and Allison,
Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3:968; Schrmann, Jesus, Gestalt und Geheimnis, 161-62).
For various views see Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 430-31; Becker, Jesus of Nazareth,
340-41; Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper, 482-512.
914
Bacon, Story of Jesus, 217. Cf. Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 216-17. Noteworthy here is the
argument of Joachim Gnilka, Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History (trans. Siegfried S.
Schatzmann; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), that sometime during Jesus final week he was
made to realize that his ministry in Israel had failed (284). This realization did not lead him to
despair, however, since he decided to speak of his death symbolically as having salvific
significance: Jesus interpreted his death symbolically and maintained his offer of salvation to
298
 The takeaway of the above discussion is that those experiences which so many have

called new or even unexpected in Jesus ministryand hence occasion for change of mind

were probably not so new or unexpected in light of his relationship with the Baptist.

6.4. JESUS AND ISRAELS SCRIPTURE AND TRADITIONS

Henry Cadbury once argued, contra Albert Schweitzer, that it was a distinctly modern

perspective that a persons aim is to be deduced from his recorded words and actions. He

claimed that to plot a career de novo would occur to almost nobody, and that to suppose that

Jesus had no definite, unified, conscious purposeis a priori likely andsuits well the

historical evidence.915 But, against Cadbury, the activities of the early Church provide strong

evidence that Jesus did indeed plot some career.916 Early Christians ministered to Gentiles in

an eschatological setting, believing that their labors fulfilled the expectations of the prophets

(e.g. Isa 45:15; 49:6; 60:5-16; 61:6; cf. Tob 13:11; 1 En. 48:7-10; 63:1-12). They claimed to

witness the outpouring of Gods spirit as prophesied by Joel (2:28-32), Ezekiel (36:22-32), and

Israel. To the disciples he leaves a meal in which people share in Gods eschatological kingdom
through the covenant with God that was opened up by virtue of his death; in this meal he remains
among them in the symbol of the bread. Thus Jesus attributed salvific effectiveness to his death,
though this effectiveness has to be seen in its focus on the kingdom of God (287). Cf. also Craig
A. Evans, Did Jesus Predict his Death and Resurrection?, in Resurrection (eds. Stanley E.
Porter, Michael A. Hayes, David Tombs; JSNTS 186; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1999), 82-97 (Jesus did not speak of his own death until his final week in Jerusalem).
915
Cadbury, Peril of Modernizing Jesus, 123, 141.
916
See here Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 239 (he speaks of an ecclesial self-understanding
that, he contends, corresponds with Jesus own goals); Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 20, 93-95
(he notes that Paul in Rom. 9-11 must assume the existence of some eschatological scenario in
order to revise it by saying the Gentiles will be included first). Also relevant here is the main
thesis of Allison, End of the Ages has Come, that the realized eschatology of the early Church
tells us something about Jesus own eschatological agenda.

299
others (cf. e.g. Isa 44:3; Zech 12:10; cf. 1QS 4:21; 4Q385; Num. Rab. 15:25).917 The pillars

James, Peter, and John base in Zion918 (Gal 2:9) with the belief that Peter was entrusted with the

Gospel for the circumcised (Gal 2:8).919 The apostles organized missions throughout the Greco-

Roman world (1 Cor 9:5), and claimed that Jesus himself had said they deserve compensation

from the people to whom they minister (1 Cor 9:14). How could all this come about if Jesus had

no definite, unified, conscious purpose? The intentionality with which Jesus earliest followers

engaged in actions typically associated with the construct restoration eschatology confirms

again the insight of Sanders and many others: the church and John the Baptist, one pointing

backward and the other forward, tell us the same thing about the life and work of Jesus: they

were set in a framework of Jewish eschatological expectation.920

That eschatological framework, and more specifically the Scriptures and traditions of

Israel that produced it, constitute an important and overlooked stabilizing feature of the original

Jesus movement. In this respect, Jesus use of Scripture affords a perspective on his ministry that

is similar to that of his relationship to the Baptist. I limit myself to two significant observations.

917
Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. Kendrick Grobel; New
York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1951 [orig. 1948]), 41; Finny Philip, The Origins of Pauls
Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the
Early Development of Pauls Theology (WUNT 194; Tbingen: Mohr, 2005), 32-121; Preston
M. Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2013), 95-121.
918
Sean Freyne, Jesus and the Servant Community in Zion: Continuity in Context, in
Jesus from Judaism to Christianity: Continuum Approaches to the Historical Jesus (ed. Tom
Holmn; London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 109-124.
919
Oscar Cullmann, Peter: DiscipleApostleMartyr (trans. Floyd V. Filson;
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953 [orig. 1952]), 56-57.
920
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 91. See also Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 239-40; idem,
Appointed Deed, Appointed Doer: Jesus and the Scriptures, in Chilson and Evans,
Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, 155-76.

300
 The first involves the Baptist once again. It hardly merits argument that Israels sacred

writ informed the message of John. Numerous studies have investigated the influence of the

prophets, the psalms, and other legal texts on his message.921 Important here is that John very

likely saw himself and his wilderness ministry as a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 40. Here is why.

(a) All four Gospels associate Isa 40 with the ministry of John (Mark 1:2; Matt 3:3; Luke 3:4-6;

John 1:23), and the citation of Isa 40:3 in the Fourth Gospel is not dependent on the Septuagint.

C. H. Dodd was likely correct in his assessment that the Fourth Gospel is independent of the

Synoptics on this point, and it attests to an earlier, pre-Greek form of the citation.922 (b) Johns

message of repentance and the coming judgment appears elsewhere to be influenced particularly

by Isaiah (cf. esp. Isa 30:27-28). (c) The Targum of Isaiah 40 claims that the sins of Jerusalem

are forgiven (from ), rather than the MTs her (Jerusalems) penalty is paid () ,

which connects with an intriguing and otherwise enigmatic aspect of the Baptists

proclamation.923 (d) As is well known, the Qumran sect used Isa 40 to explain their sojourn in

the wilderness (1QS 8:12-14; 9:19-20; 4Q176), which shows it was not only possible, but

921
Cf. J. A. Trumbower, The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist, and
James D. G. Dunn, John the Baptists Use of Scripture, in The Gospels and the Scriptures of
Israel (eds. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 28-41 and
42-54; Richard Bauckham, The Messianic Interpretation of Isa. 10:34 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2
Baruch and the Preaching of John the Baptist, DSD 2 (1995): 202-16; Tilly, Johannnes der
Tufer und die biographie der Propheten, 146-235; Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 173-76; Bilde,
Originality of Jesus, 211-12.
922
C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London: Nisbet & Co., 1952), 40. See also
M. J. J. Menken, The Quotation from Isa. 40, 3 in John 1, 23, Bib 66 (1985): 190-205. Marks
triple citation is important here as well, since the connection between Isa 40s prepare the way
( ) and Malachi 3 is possible only in Hebraic or Aramaic form. Here see Joel Marcus, The
Way of the Lord (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 17.
923
On Johns baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, see Merklein, Die
Umkehrpredigt, 31; Ernst, Johannes der Tufer, 334-36; Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet,
190-93; G. R. Schafer, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Forgiveness of Sins, PEGLMBS 26 (2006):
51-67.

301
actually a contemporaneous reality, to read Isa 40s in the wilderness literally and act out its

fulfillment.924 (e) A good case can be made that some of the so-called sign prophets were also

inspired by Isa 40, as they promised signs of liberty for all who followed them into the

wilderness.925 (f) These particular Isaianic verses do not appear elsewhere in the New

Testament literature apart from discussions of the Baptist, with the exception of the use of the

way in Acts (cf. Acts 1:5; 18:6; 28:8). It is unlikely, then, that early Christians invented this

connection, and especially at such an early stage to make the impact it did on the Gospels. (g) In

numerous Jewish texts from this period, Isa 40 is associated with the eschatological hope for the

ingathering of the exiles, and a number of Johns other activities seem to harbor this expectation

as well.926 In sum, the intertextual thread is early, widespread, fitting in a first century Jewish

context, and makes sense of Johns activities. There is no reason to doubt it.927

924
Cf. Walter Grundmann, Evangelium nach Markus (ThHK 2; Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1984), 36; James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New
York: Doubleday, 1992), 11-12; George J. Brooke, Isaiah 40:3 and the Wilderness
Community, in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the
International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. Brook and Florentino Garca-
Martnez; STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 117-32; Alison Schofield, The Wilderness Motif in
the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Israel in the Wilderness: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in
Jewish and Christian Traditions (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 37-54 at 49.
925
See Marcus, Mark 1-8, 149-58; idem, The Way of the Lord, 11; D. R. Schwartz,
Temple and Desert: On Religion and State in Second Temple Period Judaea, in Studies in the
Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT 60; Tbingen: Mohr, 1992 [orig. 1987]), 29-43.
Bruce Longenecker, The Wilderness and Revolutionary Ferment in First-Century Palestine: A
Response to D.R. Schwartz and J. Marcus, JSJ 29 (1998): 322-36, fails to note the connection
between Isaiah 40 and Exodus/Conquest traditions. The decision is not either Isaiah 40 or
Exodus/Conquest. Cf. George Wesley Buchanan, Isaianic Midrash and the Exodus, in The
Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (eds. Craig A. Evans and James
A. Sanders; JSSNTS 154; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 89-109.
926
For texts and discussion see Ferda, Isaiah 40, John the Baptist, and the Ingathering of
the Exiles, 174-86.
927
Others who conclude that John used Isa 40: Scobie, John the Baptist, 47-48; Willi
Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), 20-22, 26-29;
302
 Why does this matter? Johns use of Isa 40 matters because it strongly suggests that

Jesus, at the outset of his ministry, had already found his place in the prophetic story of Israel.

Not only is this true because he submitted to Johns water-baptism in the wilderness, but

because so many of his activities also enact prophecies from Isa 40 and the subsequent chapters

of Deutero-Isaiah.928 Interestingly, several of these enactments are clear but quite subtle, which

makes it unlikely that they were invented by the Evangelists to create some semblance of

continuity between Jesus and John or to serve some other overt theological purpose. That

subtlety is due in large part to the fact that the parallels between Jesus message and Isaiah are

sometimes clearer in Aramaic than Greek. The opening of Mark is a good example. Immediately

upon Jesus baptism and temptation, Mark has Jesus proclaim the Gospel of God (

) and declare that the time has been fulfilled and the kingdom of God

has come near ( ). Some might hear behind this summary of Jesus

message MT Isa 40:9: Get up to a high mountain, O herald of good news ( )to Zion , lift

up your voice with strength, O herald of good tidings to Jerusalem, lift it up, do not fear! Say to

the cities of Judah, Here is your God ( !) The LXX is not particularly close to Mark

Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 245-47; W. H. Brownlee, John the Baptist in the
New Light of Ancient Scrolls, in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. Krister Stendahl; New
York: Harper, 1967), 33-53 at 34-36; Rudolf Pesch, Anfang des Evangeliums Jesu Christi, in
Die Zeit Jesu. Festschrift fr Heinrich Schlier (eds. Gnther Bornkamm and Karl Rahner;
Freiburg: Herder, 1970), 108-44 at 116-18; Tilly, Johannnes der Tufer und die biographie der
Propheten, 159; Knut Backhaus, Echoes from the Wilderness: The Historical John the Baptist,
in Holmn and Porter, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2:1747-86 at 1776-77.
928
On the influence of Deutero-Isaiah on Jesus, see Archibald M. Hunter, The Work and
Words of Jesus (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975 [orig. 1950]), 93-94; Descamps,
Rflexions sur leschatologie de Jsus, 439; Werner Grimm, Die Verkndigung Jesu und
Deuterojesaja (Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1981); Bruce Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible:
Jesus Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984), 148-
98; Otto Betz, Jesus Gospel of the Kingdom, in The Gospel and the Gospels (ed. Peter
Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 53-74; Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper, 100-20.

303
linguistically. But in the Targum the parallel to the Gospel is striking: the kingdom of your God

is revealed () .929 Research on the Isaiah Targum the past century has

shown that, at the very least, a number of exegetical traditions in the Targum are much earlier

and appear presupposed in the teaching of Jesus.930 This, we can say with good confidence, is

one such tradition.931

Mark 1:14-15 is a summary statement about Jesus public proclamation, and it may have

been composed by Mark himself. On these grounds Bultmann was suspicious of it and he is not

lacking in company.932 But even should it be a summary statement and hence redactional in

that sense, it likely captures the kinds of things Jesus said upon parting ways from the Baptist.933

929
A connection noted in many commentaries on Mark, see e.g. William L. Lane, The
Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (NICNT;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 64-65; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1:8-26 (WBC 34a; Dallas:
Word Books, 1989), 43-45. See also Bruce Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and
Provenance of the Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982), 77-81.
930
Cf. Martin McNamara, Targum and New Testament: Collected Essays (WUNT 279;
Tbingen: Mohr, 2011), 480-517.
931
Meyer, Appointed Deed, Appointed Doer, 171 thinks Jesus proclamation the
kingdom of God has come near would evoke as well the Qaddi: May he allow his reign to
reign () , and that makes sense because the Qaddi probably intentionally recalls
the language of Isa 52:7 and similar texts.
932
Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 341, wrote that here Mark is under the
influence of the terminology used in Christian missionary preaching, which is a remarkable
assertion considering we know next to nothing of such activity, far less its terminology. For a
similar claim see Wolfgang Trilling, Christusverkndigung in den synoptischen Evangelien
(Munich: Ksel, 1969), 54 (the passage entspricht nicht der konkret-unsystematische Art der
Rede Jesu); Wilhelm Egger, Frohbotschaft und Lehre: die Sammelberichte des Wirkens Jesu im
Markusevangelium (Frankfurt: J. Knecht, 1976), 50-53 (in brief: Jesus offer was unconditional,
the church added the condition of repentance). Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 109, claims that
Mark 1:15 is misleading as a pointier to the thrust of Jesus message. To explain he cites
Bultmann. See also Crossan, Historical Jesus, 345.
933
Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 407, compels when he writes it almost does not matter
whether we can recover the precise words of Jesus here. What matters is that this form of
words had become fixed and established in the re-preaching of the earliest missionaries and
churches as the central summary of Jesus preaching of the kingdom. See also Vincent Taylor,
304
In support we should note, as a first point, how dubious it would be to suppose that early

Christians began to talk about their message as Gospel only after Jesus death.934 We know

that the term was used by Christians of various stripes, as Paul admits in Gal 1:6-9 that his

opponents proclaimed a Gospel too (though he quickly clarifies that it is really no Gospel, v.

7). And also, in Romans 10:14-17, Paul links the proclamation of the gospel not with his own

particular ministry but with the wider Christian movement of which he is a part. Here Paul

himself makes recourse to Deutero-Isaiah: how beautiful are the feet of those who bring good

news! (52:7).935 The best explanation for the widespread usage of Gospel by Christian groups

that disagreed about its precise import is that Jesus himself had adopted the term to characterize

his own message, and early Christians continued to use it for theirs.936 Moreover, the

intertextuality with Isaiah is important for grasping Jesus announcement of the kingdom of

God, since not only does Gospel appear frequently in Isaiah, the text several times conjoins

the announcement of Gods kingly rule (Tg.: kingdom of your God) with forms of good

The Gospel According to St. Mark (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1966 [orig. 1952]), 165-67;
Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 71-75.
934
See Graham N. Stanton, Jesus and the Gospel (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2004), 13-20 (on the likelihood that Jesus spoke of gospel). On the
availability, and significance, of gospel language for Jesus, see the excellent study by William
Horbury, Gospel in Herodian Judea, in Bockmuehl and Hagner, Written Gospel, 7-30.
935
For discussion see J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul In
Concert in the Letter to the Romans (NovTSup 101; Leiden; Boston, MA; Kln: Brill, 2002),
170-79. Paul is likely the one who made the messenger of Isa 52:7 plural (the feet of those
proclaiming) in reference to post-Easter preachers of the Gospel, and his innovation even
impacted later mss. of the LXX. See Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of
Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature [SNTMS 74;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 134-41.
936
Contra Schlosser, Le rgne de Dieu, 104-05 (the time is fulfilled and believe in the
Gospel of Mark 1:15 stem from Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity; the kingdom drawn near and
repent come from Jesus). Cf. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 168.

305
news or good tidings (Hebrew: ;Aramaic: ;LXX: ). The same

connection appears in the Jesus tradition.937 It can hardly be coincidence that Jesus, after working

independently of John, assumed Scriptural language that appeared only a few short lines away

from the inspiration for Johns ministry in the wilderness.938 The intertextual subtext implies

that Jesus is taking up Johns mantle, perhaps to further stages of fulfillment.939

There is more. Other Jewish texts from this period attest to the reading of Isaiah

eschatologically, and speculating about who the figures mentioned therein might be. It appears

that other readers linked the anointed figure of Isa 61 to the one proclaiming good news in

Isa 52 and 40. These passages, it was thought, all referred to the same person.940 This is

significant because there is a good deal of evidence that Jesus regarded himself as the figure

anointed by the Lord in Isa 61. Too often critics have supposed that this intertextual linkage is

a creation of Luke, since it occupies the centerpiece of his masterful, and clearly redactional,

937
In addition to Mark 1:14-15, cf. Matt 4:23 (
); 9:35; 24:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:6; 16:16. On the importance of the linkage between
evangelizing / good news and kingdom of God for the historical Jesus, see Bruce D. Chilton,
God in Strength: Jesus Announcement of the Kingdom (SNTSU 1; Freistadt: Plchl, 1979);
Craig A. Evans, From Gospel to Gospel: The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament, in
Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (eds. Craig C.
Broyles and Craig A. Evans; Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997), 651-91; Allison, Constructing
Jesus, 113-15.
938
Though we should not assume John himself had announced the kingdom (see Matt
3:2), perhaps inspired by these very traditions. That is the view of Taylor, Immerser, 136-38.
939
After writing this I discovered that such was precisely the view of Grotius, as
referenced in Matthew Pools Synopsis Criticorum (1669-78).
940
On esp. Isa 52 and 61, see 11QMelch 2:15-20; 1QHa 23:12-14. Cf. James A. Sanders,
The Old Testament in 11QMelchizedek, JANESCU 5 (1973): 373-82 at 380 note 12 (for
additional rabbinic sources); David Seccombe, Luke and Isaiah, NTS 27 (1981): 252-59 at 254;
Johannes Zimmerman, Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Knigliche, priesterliche und
prophetische Messiasvorstellung in den Schriftfunden von Qumran (WUNT 104; Tbingen:
Mohr, 1998), 410-12; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book
of Isaiah in Late Antiquity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 96, 269.

306
Nazareth episode (4:17-21). But while Luke may have fashioned this opening synagogue scene

for his own theological purposes,941 the exegetical roots from which it grows run deep into the

Jesus tradition.942

Jesus is reported to have said, Blessed are the poor (Luke 6:20; Matt 5:3) and
mentioned inheriting the land (Matt 5:5); cf. Isa 61:1, 5, 7.

In another beatitude, Jesus claimed blessed are those who mourn, for they will be
comforted (Matt 5:4; see Luke 6:21b); cf. Isa 61:2: .943
Jesus talks about being sent by God (see e.g. Mark 9:37 and par.; 12:6 and par.; Q
10:16); cf. Isa 61:1: .944
In one parable, Jesus chastises the man who shows up for the wedding feast without the
wedding robe (Matt 22:11-13); cf. Isa 61:9-10.945

941
Cf. Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (trans. Geoffrey Buswell; New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1960 [orig. 1954]), 31-38; Meier, Roots of the Problem and the Person, 269-
71.
942
Note Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 516-17: Even if Lukes portrayal of Jesus reading
the passage and explicitly claiming its fulfillment (Luke 4.16-21) is an elaboration of the briefer
tradition in Mark 6.1-6a, we can still be confident that this elaboration was based on a strong
remembrance of Jesus making clear allusion to the passage on more than one occasion. For
some fuller studies of Isa 61 in the ministry of Jesus see J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A
Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected
in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1974), 41-67; A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the
Constraints of History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), 140-53; Martin Hengel and
Anna Maria Schwemer, Jesus der Messias Israels, in Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die
Anfnge der Christologie: Vier Studien (WUNT 138; Tbingen: Mohr, 2001), 1-80 esp. at 42;
Steve Moyise, Jesus and Isaiah, Neot 43 (2009): 249-70 at 263-66; Tobias Hgerland, Jesus
and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Mission (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011), 194-99, 220-25, 250-54.
943
On Isa 61 in the beatitudes, see Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 104-07.
944
I find this explanation preferable to the hypothesis of Simon J. Gathercole, The Pre-
Existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids;
Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), 178: the sending statements do not in themselves indicate
preexistence, butthey should be interpreted in this way in the light of the strong evidence for
preexistence in the coming sayings, to which they are closely related.
945
On this parable and its relation with Matt 22:1-10, see Dan O. Via, The Parables:
Their Literary and Existential Dimension (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 128-32.

307
 Jesus tells the messengers of John: the poor have the good news preached to them (Q
7:22); cf. Isa 61:1: .
It is also relevant to note the sending of the twelve on an evangelizing mission.946 Memory of

this event is preserved by Mark, Q, and probably Paul in 1 Cor 9:1-14.947 Paul clearly understood

the spread of the Gospel in his time as enacting Isa 52:7 (cf. Rom. 10:15), and it may be that

Jesus himself did as well when he sent out his own followers (perhaps on more than one

occasion). The precise details of Jesus mission charge are lost to us, though these items emerge

in our different accounts: imitation of Jesus own activity, proclamation of the gospel,

announcing the kingdom of God, and speaking of peace. Augustine was put in mind here of

Isa 52:7.948 The connection would find further support if Mark is right to report that the disciples

were told to take a staff and wear their sandals, just like the Israelites before the Exodus.949 That

would pick up the new-Exodus undertones that begin in Isa 40 and extend well beyond Chapter

52.950 We cannot know when the sending occurred during the ministry, but we can at the very

946
On the reliability of this memory, see Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer: eine
Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-berlieferung (WUNT 7; Tbingen: Mohr, 1981),
453-54; Meier, Companions and Competitors, 154-63. For discussion of the variances between
Mark and Q, see Schrter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 211, 236-37.
947
On Pauls knowledge of the mission discourse, see Dale C. Allison Jr., The Pauline
Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels, NTS 29 (1982): 1-32 at 12-13;
idem, Jesus Tradition in Q, 105-111; David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of
Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 190-199. Contra Nicholas Walter, Paulus und
die urchristliche Jesustradition, NTS 31 (1985): 498-522. It may be that Paul presupposes, in
terms of content, the instruction of Jesus developed in the synoptic discourses, but was not
actually aware of the Q or Markan forms. So Schrter, From Jesus to the New Testament, 80-81.
Cf. Christopher Tuckett, Paul and the Synoptic Mission Discourse, From the Sayings to the
Gospels, 309-315.
948
Augustine, Corrept. 46. See also Enarrat. Ps. 68.30.
949
See here Marcus, Mark 1-8, 388-90. See also Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 41-43.
950
Cf. Walther Zimmerli, Der neue Exodus in der Verkndigung der beiden groen
Exilspropheten, in Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufstze zum Alten Testament (ed. Walther
Zimmerli; Munich: Kaiser, 1963), 192-204 at 197-98; Rikki E. Watts, Consolation or
308
least say that it occurred at some point after Jesus had parted ways with John and gathered his

own band of disciples. Thus the intertextuality attests to some kind of continuity over time.

Finally, we should mention and endorse here the attempt of A. E. Harvey in Jesus and the

Constraints of History to make sense of Jesus miracle working activity. Harvey argued that

Jesus found opportunities to perform particular cures that were characteristic of the new age.951

In particular, his miracles echo the catena of images mentioned in Isa 35:5-6, a passage expressly

recalled by Jesus in his reply to John the Baptist according to Q 7:18-23.952

What all this means for the consistency question is that Jesus, like John, styled himself as

one who fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah. More than that, it appears that Jesus, like John, read the

hidden things of Isaiah (cf. Sir 48:24-25)953 as a kind of blueprint for his ministry.954 Jesus did

Confrontation? Isaiah 40-55 and the Delay of the New Exodus, TynBul 41 (1990): 31-59.
ystein Lund, Way Metaphors and Way Topics in Isaiah 40-55 (WUNT 28; Tbingen: Mohr,
2007).
951
Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, 113 (on 113-15 he contends that the
motivation was neither solely to express compassion nor to generate fame). Cf. Jub. 1:29; 23:30;
1 En. 96:2; 2 Bar. 29:7; 73:2. See also Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 59; Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God, 428-29; George J. Brooke, Shared Exegetical Traditions between the Scrolls
and the New Testament, in Oxford Handbook to the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. Timothy H. Lim
and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 565-91 at 584; Andr LaCocque,
Jesus the Central Jew: His Times and His People (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 55.
952
Sanders disagreed with Harvey in Jesus and Judaism, 163-64. He wrote that the
influence of Isaiah need not be excluded from (the) picture, but it would be, at least at the
outset, more coincidental than determinative. That is because Sanders thinks it more likely that
Jesus found that he could heal. But it is unlikely that Jesus accidently discovered that he
could heal. If cross-cultural parallels between Jesus and traditional folk-healers are of any value,
then it is probable that Jesus healing ministry was intentional on his part. Cf. Pieter F. Craffert,
The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective
(Eugene: Cascade, 2008); Justin Meggitt, The Historical Jesus and Healing: Jesus Miracles in
Psychosocial Context, in Spiritual Healing: Scientific and Religious Perspectives (ed. Fraser
Watts; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 17-43.
953
(Isaiah) saw the future, and comforted () the mourners in Zion. He
revealed what was to occur to the end of time, and the hidden things ( ) before they
happened.

309
not leave John and start making it up from scratch, and he certainly did not begin his ministry

with a question about what he was to do that was open to confirmation or disapproval by the

whims of popularity or the disappointments of rejection. Jesus began with a conviction that his

mission was anticipated by Scripture. This conviction had already survived Johns arrest and the

opposition that he had faced. It withstood even the queries of the Baptist himself when he

wondered, with self-evident skepticism, whether or not Jesus was indeed the coming one.955 It

could anticipate that Jesus disciples would face rejection in various villages with injunctions not

to change plans but to leave that place and head to the next, leaving behind the dust on their

sandals. And it may even have inspired Jesus final journey to Jerusalem, since clearly the

impression of the texts in Isa 40 and 52 is that the message of the good news and the kingly rule

of God is to be proclaimed in Jerusalem.956 One also finds in this connection the tradition in Zech

954
On Scripture as script, cf. McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 177-204.
955
I would dispute the common claims that Jesus in his reply to John intentionally
avoided language of judgment to correct Johns understanding of the coming one or the timing
of the judgment. Cf. Joachim Jeremias, Jesus Promise to the Nations (SBT 24; rev. ed.; London:
SCM, 1967 [orig. 1953]), 46; Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 67, 76; Saunders, Jesus in the
Gospels, 65; Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 81; Davies and Allison, Gospel
According to Saint Matthew, 1:245-46; Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 133-34; Smith,
Jesus Twofold Teaching, 92; Steve Moyise, Jesus and the Scriptures of Israel, 1158. Jesus
speaks quite a lot of judgment elsewhere and his important role in it, and there is no reason to
think these Isaianic images are at odds with Johns message of judgment. I would contend
there is more continuity here than discontinuity: Jesus alludes to memorable images of Isaiah as
John was also inspired by that great prophet. Jesus tells John that the eschatological restoration
he predicted is in fact beginning to take place.
956
See here Chilton, Galilean Rabbi, 59-60. Tan, Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus,
argued that Jesus had a Zion theology and saw the holy city as the focus of Gods
eschatological blessing and the center of Gods universal rule. He argued that Jesus activity in
Jerusalem, hoping to set in motion the restoration of Zion, was fully consistent with his ministry
prior to that fateful journey (if not its crowning explanation) (5). Tans thesis, while intriguing,
is constructed rather precariously on the authenticity of three individual sayings (Matt 5:34-35;
Luke 13:32-33; Luke 13:34-35), and does not note this connection.

310
14:9 that Gods kingly rule will be manifest on Mount Zion,957 which squares with Jesus other

activities in Jerusalem that seem inspired by the final chapters of that book.958

The second point: the Scriptures not only provided Jesus with an agenda, they evidently

supplied a lens through which he could view and make sense of opposition, struggle, and

rejection. As types of Gods activities in the past, as well as prophecies about what was to come

in the future, the Scriptures had a story that was big enough to contain the unfortunate realities of

Jesus ministry without creating radical discontinuities in aims and message.

We begin with the impression left by our sources. The Gospels are incredibly adept at

framing the current experiences of Jesus in parallel to the past experiences of Israel and its

heroes.959 In the Gospel of John, for instance, the Jews grumble () at Jesus during

his Bread of Life discourse (John 6:41), which evokes the wandering narratives and Israels

disobedience to God and Moses.960 This episode, and the many others like it that fill the Gospels,

function to normalize what Jesus is doing and to show that he stands on the side of God. But

where did this widespread hermeneutical tactic come from? Surely it was advantageous for early

Christians to present their leader in this light, but the general inspiration must have come from

957
Tg. Zech. 14:9: and the kingdom of the Lord will be revealed () .
Cf. also Tg. Oba. 21.
958
Cf. Hiers, Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 77-86; Jeremias, Proclamation of
Jesus, 107; Cecil Roth, The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah, NovT 4 (1960): 174-81;
Craig A. Evans, Jesus and Zechariahs Messianic Hope, in Chilson and Evans, Authenticating
the Activities of Jesus, 373-88; Le Donne, Historiographical Jesus, 195-96.
959
Cf. John J. ORourke, Possible Uses of the Old Testament in the Gospels: An
Overview, in Evans and Stegner, Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, 15-27; Richard B. Hays,
The Canonical Matrix of the Gospels, in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels (ed. Steve
Barton; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 53-75.
960
See Brown, Gospel According to John, 1:270.

311
Jesus himself. The main reason is simple: this is conventional stuff. Josephus,961 the Dead Sea

Sect,962 and many other writings from our period bolster their privileged positions and persons

with these kind of Scriptural language games. Such was a standard model for identity

construction and meaning-making in first century Judaism. It is almost inconceivable Jesus did

not do this, even should we be uncertain about the historicity of this or that episode above.

This interpretive praxis makes it highly unlikely, then, that Jesus would have encountered

realities during his ministry that he did not know what to do with, and thus required a drastic

reorganization of his ministry goals. Not only was Jesus freshly baptized by the incarcerated (and

executed) Baptizer, his Scriptures contained the stories of Moses and others who were opposed

by the people of Israel. Jesus apparently found such prototypes fitting as circumstances required

(discussed more in the next chapter).

The best example of Jesus making Scriptural sense of his experiences, that also stands on

firm historical ground, are his interactions with the expectation of the messianic woes. This

view is not strictly Scriptural per se, although Jesus contemporaries surely thought that it was.

As numerous studies have shown, it appears to have been a more or less conventional belief that

961
E.g. Josephus frames the revolutionaries in Jerusalem as the opposition Jeremiah faced
redivivus; cf. Tucker S. Ferda, Jeremiah 7 and Flavius Josephus on the First Jewish War, JSJ
44 (2013): 158-73.
962
Cf. Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds.
Florentino Garca Martnez and Mladen Popovi; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008); G. W .E.
Nickelsburg, The We and the Other in the Worldview of 1 Enoch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and
Other Early Jewish Texts, in The Other in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John
J. Collins (ed. Daniel C. Harlow et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 262-78; Shanai Tzoref,
The Use of Scripture in the Community Rule, in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in
Early Judaism (ed. Matthias Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 203-34.

312
things were going to get a lot worse before they got better.963 It is striking in this light that Jesus

is reported to have said the following (Q 12:51-53):

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but
a sword! For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her
mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a mans foes will be those
of his own household.964

As Jeremias suggested and Dale Allison has shown convincingly,965 this is clearly messianic

woes language. Jesus here interacts with Mic 7:6, which is also taken by b. Sanh. 97a and m.

Sota 9:15 to depict the final tribulation. The saying of Jesus sits squarely within a larger

interpretive tradition.966 In effect, then, Jesus says, the division of families, which is

controversial to some of my hearers, is in fact not strange or unexpected, but rather stands in full

continuity with what Scripture has said would happen before the age to come.967

Other sayings scattered throughout the tradition also show that Jesus placed the

possibility of his death in the context of the messianic woes.968 Most recently Scot McKnight has

shown this with reference to the cup (Mark 10:38; 14:36), a baptism of suffering (Luke

963
For discussion see Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 200; Hiers, Historical Jesus and the
Kingdom of God, 25-26; Allison, End of the Ages has Come, 5-25; idem, Jesus of Nazareth:
Millenarian Prophet, 145-47; Stanley E. Porter, Tribulation/Messianic Woes, DLNTD, 1179-
1182; Pitre, Jesus, Tribulation, and the End of Exile, 41-130.
964
I have opted to follow Matthew here (10:34-36) rather than attempt to reconstruct Q.
Cf. James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John Kloppenborg, eds., The Critical Edition of Q
(Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 380-86.
Jeremias, Proclamation of Jesus, 242; Allison, Q 12:51-53 and Mark 9:11-13 and the
965

Messianic Woes, 289-310.

966
Cf. Jub. 23:16-19, 29; Sib. Or. 8:84; 2 Bar. 70:1-7; 4 Ezra (Armenian) 5:9; Tg. Mic.
7:6; 1 En. 56:7; 70:7; 99:5; 100:1-2; CDb 19:16-17.
967
See also Mark 13:12.
968
Meyer, Christus Faber, 116.

313
12:49-50), the hour of darkness (Luke 22:53), and other sayings.969 Earlier Jeremias offered a

compelling assessment that Jesus expected that suffering was a necessary prelude to the

realization of the kingdom.970 It should not be missed that several of these passages of interest

assume language that resembles that of the Baptist.

At this point one might wonder how this analysis differs at all from the crisis theory of

Albert Schweitzer (who thought that Jesus attributed the failure of the kingdom to come [so Matt

10:23] to the necessity of suffering the messianic tribulation), or that of Ulrich Luz (who argued

that Jesus identified rejection in his ministry as a sign of the woes, which compelled him late in

his ministry to leave Galilee for Jerusalem).971 The difference is one of timing and outlook.

Schweitzer and Luz both assumed that Jesus adopted the woes idea to make sense of challenges

at some later point in his ministry. I believe, instead, that this expectation was there and active at

the outset, indeed perhaps already at or even before the arrest of John the Baptist. Jesus was,

then, expecting struggle and opposition from the very beginning, and making sense of that

through the Scriptural lens of the Messianic tribulation.

Two observations support this contention. The first, to my mind, is quite strong. The

reality to which Jesus reference to Mic 7:6 points is without a doubt his call to discipleship.

People were leaving their families to follow Jesus, and in some quarters this was understandably

969
McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 124-29, 144-47. Cf. Pitre, Jesus, Tribulation, and the
End of Exile, 381-508.
970
Jeremias, Proclamation of Jesus, 127 (Jesus saw his ministry as the prelude to the
coming of the eschatological time of distress), 129 (the kingdom of God comes through
suffering and only through suffering).
971
See above, pp. 207-08.

314
controversial.972 We have other statements of Jesus, surely historical, that also reflect on this, and

will be discussed more in the following chapter. Many of these sayings have harsh implications

for the family, e.g. hating ones parents (Q 14:26), and leaving the dead to bury the dead (Q

9:59-60).973 Even Peter is reported to have complained about his sacrifices, concerning which

Jesus promised future rewards for those who left brother and sister and father and mother and

children (Mark 10:29). It is likely that Jesus statements about new family also stem from these

activities (Mark 3:31-35). All of this matters because Jesus call to discipleship is probably an

aspect of his mission that began at its outset.974 The Gospels of course give this impression. Mark

and Matthew make the call of the four Jesus first action in the Galilee (Mark 1:16-20; Matt

4:18-22). In John, Jesus gleans his first disciples from the Baptist movement, which may be the

more plausible historical scenario (1:35-51). In any case, we do not need perfect clarity on the

process to affirm what our sources hold in common: Jesus right away started calling disciples to

follow him. As such, some of these left their homes and their families, which is precisely the

reality to which the above statements refer. It may be that such familial separation was already

characteristic of the Baptist movement. Perhaps Jesus and other people had left their families

to attend the prophetic call of John in the wilderness. Though it could also be that this was

something new when Jesus departed from Nazareth for Capernaum, and may be partly to blame

for the familial antagonism that surfaces in Mark (3:21). We do not know. The only clear and

972
Some have wondered if Marks note that there were hired hands left in the boat
(1:20) was an attempt to make clear that the Zebedee boys had not left their father wholly
stranded. See Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Matthew, 1:402; Marcus, Mark 1-8, 181.
973
See Appendix below.
974
Cf. Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 213-17, 570; Meier, Companions and
Competitors, 46, 51-52.

315
important thing is that by virtue of Jesus early call to discipleship, we have at the outset of his

mission the signs of the messianic tribulation.

The second insight is not as decisive because it concerns a highly ambiguous saying. But

it is worth mentioning still. Matthew and Luke record a striking saying of Jesus as follows:

Matt 11:12-13: From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven
suffers violence, and violent ones seize it.

Luke 16:16: The law and the prophets were until John. From thereafter the good news of
the kingdom of God is proclaimed and all enter it violently.

The so-called men of violence saying has been one of the most perplexing of all the sayings of

Jesus.975 If there is any scholarly agreement it is that Jesus probably said something like this.

What exactly he said, however, and, further, what he may have meant, is a different story.976 In

any case, to my mind Brant Pitre offers a very reasonable hypothesis.977 Pitre argues that the

notion of the kingdom suffering violence is notable because the eschatological tribulation in

Jewish literature, if it is characterized by anything, is characterized by violence.978 He draws

attention to several texts (e.g. in 1 En., 4Q171, and 1QH), to which I would add 4Q246.979 He

975
As is commonly noted. Cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary
on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 630; Meier, Mentor, Message, and
Miracles, 157.
976
Cf. F. W. Danker, Luke 16.16an Opposition Logion, JBL 77 (1958): 231-243; S.
G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: Manchester University, 1967), 200; P. W.
Barnett, Who were the Biastai?, RTR 36 (1977): 65-70; David Catchpole, On Doing Violence
to the Kingdom, JTSA 25 (1978): 50-61; Barbara Thiering, Are the Violent Ones as False
Teachers?, NovT 21 (1979): 293-297; P. S. Cameron, Violence and the Kingdom: The
Interpretation of Matthew 11:12 (Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1984); Davies and Allison, Gospel
According to Saint Matthew, 2:253-55; Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 2:157-61.
977
See Pitre, Jesus, Tribulation, and the End of Exile, 159-76.
978
Pitre, Jesus, Tribulation, and the End of Exile, 166.
979
The mention of trampling and other negative images after the introduction of the
enigmatic son of God figure makes sense if the notion of the tribulation is a thematic
backdrop, and hence does not indicate that the fragment here describes a negative character. I did
316
concludes: in this saying, Jesus is interpreting Johns rejection and execution as the

inauguration of the period of violence that would characterize the final tribulation.980

I find this the most compelling treatment of the saying, though there is plenty of room for

disagreement. In any case, Pitre does not have to be entirely correct, but only somewhere near

the truth, to affirm that Jesus here attributes the onset of the woes to the very beginning of his

autonomous ministry: the Baptists imprisonment.981

None of the points made in this section imply that Jesus read his ministry straight out of

the Scriptures, or that he saw everything laid out before him.982 Indeed, the next sections will

argue against such an idea. The takeaway is that in view of Jesus association with John the

Baptist and his use of Scripture, we know that he had a theological framework that could

accommodate new and unexpected experiences, challenges, opposition. His eschatological

mindset could not only make sense of, but very likely anticipated, dire circumstances before the

kingdom would come. It is hard to imagine what in the ministry could have caused a theological

not think of that argument when I wrote Naming the Messiah: A Contribution to the 4Q246
Son of God Debate, DSD 21 (2014): 150-75.
980
Pitre, Jesus, Tribulation, and the End of Exile, 168.
981
A further possible connection here: there is good reason to think that Jesus labeled
John Elijah redivivus (cf. Mark 9:11-13; Q 7:26-27). See Casey, Aramaic Approach to Q, 105-
45. Moreover, as we have seen, he evidently spoke of conflict amongst neighbors and families
after parting ways with John. The two may be connected via interpretive tradition about Elijah
and his task. In 4 Ezra 6:24-28, Elijah is expected to come in the midst of familial conflict (in
order to resolve it; cf. also Mal 4:6; Sir 48:10). So, when the Baptist, the eschatological Elijah,
was arrested and executedrather than, as Sir 48 indicates, restore the tribes of Jacobmight
the inverse of that expectation also ensue? Note that in Mark 9:11 Jesus seems to be reversing
some scribal interpretation of the eschatological Elijah on the basis of what happened to John.
See here the important thesis of Joel Marcus, Mark 9,11-13: As It Has Been Written, ZNW
80 (1989): 42-63. Thus, there may be further reason to link the onset of the woes to the
beginning of Jesus career, after the arrest/execution of John.
982
See here Schrmann, Jesus, Gestalt und Geheimnis, 165-66 (Jesus did not deduce the
certainty of his death as an ideology detached from history, e.g. from the belief of the
persecution of the prophets or something else).

317
paradigm shift, even assuming that certain unfashionable bumps and bends in the road have been

left out of our narrative Gospels.983

6.5. CONCLUSION

The conclusions of this chapter are modest, but important. They have immediate relevance for

the theory of a Galilean crisis, but extend beyond that. We found:

(i) it is difficult if not impossible to identify, systematize, and then periodize theological
tensions in the Gospels;
(ii) this difficulty is due to the nature of our extant sources, the fact we lack so much
information about Jesus life and thought, and the relatively weak explanatory power of
insights based on individual passages;
(iii) the assumptions at play in the way early Christians told stories about Jesus imply
that they were unaware of any notable change in his message or aims;
(iv) Jesus relationship with the work of John the Baptist appears to be characterized by a
general continuity that persisted over time, even after Johns arrest and execution;
(v) Jesus use of Israels Scriptures shows that he engaged his ministry from the start with
something of a script for his task;
(vi) traditional eschatological expectations, as well as Jesus concrete experiences with
the Baptist, make it unlikely that opposition and the prospect of death would have
required Jesus to revise his scenario for ministry.
To be clear, in no way do these arguments constitute a blanket critique of the crisis theory. As we

have seen, several of the proposals discussed did not so much pose two discontinuous periods in

the ministry, but rather conceived of a gradual development throughout. In this case, Jesus may

983
Relevant here is Rudolf Hoppe on the implications of the parable of the sower in
How did Jesus Understand His Death? The Parables in Eschatological Prospect, in Jesus
Research: An International Perspective (eds. James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorn; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 154-69 at 162-63: we can conclude that the Nazarene had not only
been consistent in maintaining his claim to stand for the coming of the basileia of God in word
and practice, but had emphatically underlined that claim. Based on the parable of the sower, we
nowhere see for Jesus any qualitative reorientation in the tense relationship between, on the one
hand, the enforceability of Gods will for salvation that he had represented and proclaimed, and,
on the other, the experience of the failure of his own mission.

318
have ended in a different place than he began, but it would be a mischaracterization to think him

theologically inconsistent. C. H. Dodds proposal comes immediately to mind. In his case,

failure in Galilee led Jesus not to a new theological program, but to search the Scriptures more

deeply, and find therein a fitting response to his new circumstances. My arguments here do not

work so well against that view, and so I simply rely on criticisms already voiced in the

Assessment sections of prior chapters.

It is, in any case, important to make that admission because the arguments of this chapter

in no way flatten the ministry of Jesus into two dimensional space, such that he becomes, like the

Jesus of too many movies, impervious to real human experience. The crisis idea, despite its

problems, has encouraged historians to think of Jesus as a complex person who struggled,

doubted, questioned, and reacted to his social situation. There is more to be said here.

The next chapter will aim to resurrect some of the interpretive moves of the crisis theory for

contemporary scholarship.

319
 CHAPTER 7.0:
FAME AND FAILURE

Jesus also, for a certain time, was very popular, and look at how that turned out.

--Pope Francis

In this final chapter I wish to argue that the Jesus movement, albeit generally consistent in aims

(Chapter 6), also bears the marks of having worked through successes and failures of various

kinds. We hear often that the early Church was a contingent movement whose profile was

intimately bound up with different types of reception that it found among various audiences.

Rarely do we find interest in claiming the same for the historical Jesus. My contention in this

chapter is that Jesus too was forced to respond to opposition and make theological sense of the

rejection of his message. Jesus too was likely disappointed by the response of some to his

proclamation. The interpretive moves that undergird the crisis theory still have something

positive to contribute to contemporary scholarship on the historical Jesus.

The argument is important because it raises questions that current Jesus study has been

largely content to ignore.984 One has to look hard to find studies of the impact of Jesus reception

on his message. Neglect here is no doubt due to the form critics, because the idea of addressing

984
See here Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 21. Note also the essay by
Baasland, Fourth Quest? What Did Jesus Really Want?, 1:31-56, which claims that we are in
need of a new method and in fact a fourth quest (56) to address the relationship between
Jesus intentions and incidental situations (43).

320
Jesus reception sounds too much like charting development in the ministry. I agree with much

of the response of form criticism to 19th-century Jesus research, as should by now be clear.

Nonetheless, I suggest in what follows that there is a dynamic and reactionary character to some

of the Gospel material that crisis theorists were right to emphasize, even if they overemphasized

it. The old diachronic approach to Jesus may have failed. But the reproof of the form critics

should not (because it could not), inspire confidence in the project that has taken its place: to

treat the tradition as a synchronic whole and reconstruct Jesus views of fill-in-the-blank.

The following sections take up different aspects of a generalization encountered

numerous times in this study, that Jesus ministry found early success and growing opposition.

I will argue, on the whole, that the characterization is not only generally likely, but that we can

say some specific things about it that are similar to what crisis theorists have concluded in the

past.

7.1. A GALILEAN SPRING?

Some things about the beginning of Jesus public career can never be known.985 It seems a

general rule that the further one tries to go back into the life of Jesus the blurrier things become.

The end of his career is clear on at least three big events, which helpfully situate themselves in a

rough chronology: temple action, last meal with his disciples, crucifixion.986 The beginning of

the ministry is not like that. We know he was baptized by John, but little else. He may for a

985
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 159.
See here Dibelius, Jesus, 29; Robin Scroggs, Reflections on the Question: Was there
986

a Pre-Markan Passion Narrative? SBLSP 2 (1971): 503-85; Marcus, Mark 8-16, 926. See also
Till Arend Mohr, Markus- und Johannespassion: Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung der Markinischen und Johanneischen Passionstradition (AThANT 70; Zurich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1982), 404-28.

321
while have been a disciple of the Baptist. Or perhaps John was arrested shortly after Jesus

baptism, as the Synoptics seem to assume. All we know is that at some later point John was

dead, and Jesus had his own movement in the Galilee.

There are, however, a few important features of this early ministry we can illuminate that

harken back to the crisis theory.

First, there must have been a significant increase in Jesus popularity after Johns arrest,

which would change the situation of his ministry. This is not an obvious conclusion. Given the

results of Chapter 6 on the general continuity between Jesus and John, one might think that the

Fourth Gospel provides a reasonable scenario for the growth of Jesus popularity: he borrowed it

from John. After all, the Fourth Gospel is unique in having Jesus and John conduct

contemporaneous baptizing ministries, which may be reliable.987 Johns disciples eventually tell

him the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing,

and all are going to him (3:26). The Pharisees also hear that Jesus is making and baptizing

more disciples than John (4:1). This process is aided by Johns own testimony: He who has

the bride is the bridegroomhe must increase, I must decrease (3:29-30).

Yet this portrait fails to compel historically. It is not because we must doubt the reliability

of Fourth Gospel (though I am much less optimistic than some recent work in this area).988 The

987
On Jesus continuing to baptize, see Richard T. France, Jesus the Baptist?, in Jesus
of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology
(eds. Joel B. Green and Max Turner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 94-111; Joan E. Taylor
and Federico Adinolfi, John the Baptist and Jesus the Baptist: A Narrative Critical Approach,
JSHJ 10 (2012): 247-84.
988
Cf. James G. Crossley, Johns Gospel and the Historical Jesus: An Assessment of
Recent Trends and Defense of a Traditional View, in Is This Not the Carpenter? The Question
of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (eds. Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna;
Durham: Acumen, 2012), 163-84; Paul Foster, Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: Three
Dead-Ends in Historical Jesus Research, JSHJ 10 (2012): 191-227 at 212-27.

322
reason is that we can say with confidence that Jesus did not get much help from John the Baptist

in terms of his popularity.

We should say first that there is no reason to doubt that John the Baptist had generated a

far-reaching reputation and had amassed a large following.989 The Gospels surely exaggerate this

effect, as Mark reports that the entire region of Judea and all of the Jerusalemites were going

out to him (1:5). But Josephus corroborates the gist of it:990 many people gathered around John

and were greatly moved by his words (Ant. 18:118).991 Against the claim of Mark and Matthew

that Herod executed John only on account of the scheming of wily women (cf. Mark 6:17-29 and

par.), Josephus presents the more plausible historical picture: on account of the attention John

was getting, Herod feared insurrection.992 So he took care of the Baptist.993

989
Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 212.
990
I find unconvincing some recent attempts to question the authenticity of Josephus
short write-up about John; so Rivka Nir, Josephus Account of John the Baptist: A Christian
Interpolation? JSHJ 10 (2012): 32-62. Cf. tienne Nodet, Jsus et Jean-Baptiste selon
Josphe, RB 92 (1985): 497-524; John P. Meier, John the Baptist in Josephus: Philology and
Exegesis, JBL 111 (1992): 225-37; H. Lichtenberger, Josephus ber Johannes den Tufer,
Jesus und Jakobus, BK 53 (1998): 67-71; Robert L. Webb, Josephus on John the Baptist:
Jewish Antiquities 18.116-119, Forum 2 (1999): 141-68.
991
Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 58-59, suspects that, for Josephus,
at the beginning of 18:118 may refer to the larger group of ordinary people, as
opposed to a smaller number of exceptionally religious persons already cultivating a life of
virtue. If he is right, it would tell us only about Josephus perspective on the matter, and
probably again his attempt to attribute revolutionary sentiment to a segment of the population.
Cf. Louis Feldman, Josephus Biblical Paraphrase as a Commentary on Contemporary Issues,
in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and
Tradition (ed. Craig A. Evans; JSPSup 33; SSEJC 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000),
124-201 at 159-69.
992
Josephus, Ant. 18:118 (LCL): When others too joined the crowds about him, because
they were aroused to the highest degree by his sermons, Herod became alarmed. Eloquence that
had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they
would be guided by John in everything that they did.
993
This is by now the standard historical reconstruction. See Crossan, Historical Jesus,
234-35; Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 171-76. On the theological function of Johns
323
 When we turn to consider Jesus, we can be sure that there was no widespread and well

known link between the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of John in the sense that the former

was thought a simple continuation of the latter. It is true that Jesus was in contact with those who

were formerly attracted to John. He may have culled some of his first followers from the

Baptists circle (John 2:35-51). It is also apparent that, at least on occasion, Jesus preached to

people who knew of Johns message and had presumably attended his call to the wilderness (e.g.

Q 7:24: what did you go out to the wilderness to look at?). But over and over again we find

that the linkage between these two ministries is a question, not an accepted fact. Differentiation

is implied by a number of episodes:

Why do the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your
disciples do not fast? (Mark 2:18 and par.).

Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples (Luke 11:1).

Among those born of women none is greater than John; yet the least in the
kingdom of God is greater than he (Q 7:28).

John came eating no bread and drinking no winethe Son of Man has come
eating and drinking (Q 7:33).

John sends his disciples to ask Jesus are you the coming one or shall we wait for
another? (Q 7:19).

Early Christians would not be eager to invent the idea that John sent to ask if Jesus is truly the

coming one.994 The most straightforward explanation for this is that John did not previously

death for Mark, see Christos Karakolis, Narrative Funktion und christologische Bedeutung der
markinischen Erzhlung vom Tod Johannes des Tufers (Mk 6:14-29), NovT 52 (2010): 134-55.
994
For more on this encounter and its reliability, see Jeremias, Proclamation of Jesus,
103-05, Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 80-83; Walter Wink, Jesus Reply to
John, Forum 5 (1989): 121-27; Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 109-14; Hengel and Schwemer,
Jesus der Messias Israels, 72-73; Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 181-82. Contra Gnilka, Jesus of
Nazareth, 131 (who attributes it to later scribal reflection).

324
point to Jesus directly.995 Mark, in failing to provide any explicit link between Jesus and John,

probably leaves a reliable scenario: the Baptist did not direct his audience to Jesus as the

continuation or fulfillment of his work.996 The preservation of a Baptist movement in the first

century makes sense on that supposition (cf. Acts 19:3-4).

The differing social realities of the movements of Jesus and John leads to an important

conclusion: Jesus did not simply absorb Johns reputation and following. He thus had to forge his

own path with the people. He had to grow his own acclaim.

The behavior of Jesus and Herod Antipas, respectively, confirm this historical

reconstruction. Given Herods fear that Johns crowd could start an insurrection, we should

doubt the reliability of the claim that even during Johns ministry the one who was with you

across the Jordan, to whom you testified, is baptizing, and all are going to him (3:26; see also

4:1). Jesus may have had a contemporaneous ministry for some time with John.997 But he could

not have been more popular than John at this point.998 It is inexplicable that Antipas, after

singling out John, would leave Jesus running around the Galilee with an equally large contingent

of admirers. Moreover, it would be absurd for Jesus, after Johns arrest, to move to the Galilee

the seat of Herods jurisdictionand camp only a few miles north of Herods new Tiberias at

995
Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 222; Scobie, John the Baptist, 147.
Acrobatic attempts to establish the contrary in the history of interpretation demonstrate that in
their own way; cf. Jacques Dupont, Lambassade de Jean-Baptiste (Matthieu 11,2-6; Luc 7,18-
23), NRT 83 (1961): 805-21 at 806-13.
996
Bilde, Originality of Jesus, 201, wrote of Mark 2:18 and par. This texts also suggests
that the Baptist after his baptism of Jesus still had his own circle of disciples, and that his group
and the Jesus movement to some extent had each their own religious practices.
997
Cf. Graham Twelftree, Jesus the Baptist, JSHJ 7 (2009): 103-25.
998
Pace Hunter, Work and Words of Jesus, 51-52; Meier, Mentor, Message, and
Miracles, 133; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 351.

325
Capernaum.999 Instead, the Synoptics are in agreement, and on this likely reliable, that at some

later point in the ministry Herod caught word of Jesus because his name had become known

(Mark 6:14 and par.). Herod, in other words, did not know of Jesus at the time of Johns arrest,

because there was not much of Jesus to be known. It was only later, after Jesus had grown his

own movement and gained is own acclaim, that Herod became aware of it. It is at this point that

a strange tradition unique to Luke makes good sense, and may well be historical: some

Pharisees came and said to Jesus, Get out of here! For Herod wants to kill you (Luke

13:31).1000

What all this means is that there must have been a significant development in Jesus

public perception after Johns arrest and during the time of his early Galilean ministry. One

could, of course, question the impression of the Gospels that Jesus was a popular figure. But that

will not do. The Gospels have surely exaggerated the excitement that Jesus generated (e.g. Mark

6:53-56; Luke 12:41),1001 and in this respect the presentation of each Gospel is not unlike the

999
On Jesus early activities in and around this area, see Peter Busch et al., Er predigte
in ihren Drfern und Synagogen Die archologische Forschung am See Gennesaret und die
frhe Jesusbewegung, in Leben am See Gennesaret: Kulturgeschichtliche Entdeckungen in
einer biblischen Region (ed. Gabriele Fassbeck et al.; Mainz: von Zabern, 2003), 153-63. More
on this below.
1000
See Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:355.
1001
The locations from which the crowds stream are also of theological benefit for the
Evangelists, and they are willing to be creative here. For instance, Matthew and Luke change the
list of territories from which Jesus gathered admirers (Mark 3:7-8; Matt 4:24-25; Luke 6:17) and
change Marks story of the exorcism in the Decapolis (Luke changes Mark 5:20; Matt omits it
entirely). The theological aim is clear: Matthews Jesus, sent only to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel (10:5), finds admiration among the same, and Luke, who holds open the door for
Gentiles even before the ministry of Jesus begins (e.g. 2:32), nevertheless withholds the
extension of that offer until Peters apocalyptic vision in Acts 10. Matthew and Luke, therefore,
redact their source material to fit their own theological vision. On Matthew see Matthias
Konradt, Die Sendung zu Israel und zu den Volkern im Matthusevangelium im Lichte seiner
narrative Christologie, ZKT 101 (2004): 397-425. We should assume that Mark did the same
with his; cf. Eric K. Wefald, The Separate Gentile Mission in Mark: A Narrative Explanation of
326
idealistic sketch of the early Jerusalem Church in Acts (2:47; 4:4).1002 The general impression of

popularity should be thought reliable, however, even if we can say little concrete about size and

comparability to the movements surrounding Theudas, the Egyptian, and even John the

Baptist.1003 The main reason to trust, which I will explore further later, is that Jesus popularity

was a contributing factor to his execution in Jerusalem. Jesus became like his forerunner after all.

On the basis of these rather secure pieces of evidence I am led to think that it is not

wholly inapt to describe this early period of the ministry as the Galilean Spring. Half of this

argument will have to wait until the next section (and esp. the Appendix), where I propose that

some of the opposition Jesus faced presupposes his prior successes. But there is another angle to

take here, which has to do with how Jesus got his start in the Galilee after leaving John. On this

question the Gospels give three different answers, though they are all, of course, uninterested in

cause and effect.1004 Matthew and Luke have Jesus begin an itinerant ministry throughout the

Galilee, spreading the news of himself by himself, as it were. He finds immediate acclaim.1005

Markan Geography, the Two Feeding Accounts and Exorcisms, JSNT 20 (1995): 3-26. In the
Fourth Gospel, note Jesus favorable reception among Samarians (4:39-42), and his encounter
with Greeks wanting to see him in Jerusalem (12:20-21).
1002
Cf. Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, 213-15; Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight:
The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 69-70; James
D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 185-206 (who also
cites Barrett to the effect that, despite the idealization, there is no ground for doubting the
outline).
1003
See Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:332-33. Sanders, Jesus and
Judaism, 226, 239-40, 289, thinks Jesus impact may have been smaller than John the Baptists,
and certainly smaller than the Egyptians. Cf. Meier, Companion and Competitors, 27.
1004
Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 159: It is not to be supposed that Mark or any of the
other evangelists knew the actual interconnections among Jesus fame, his intention, his healing
and his preaching.
1005
Matt 4:23-25; Luke 4:14-15. For Matthew, it is clear, this is nothing less than the
miraculous fulfillment of Isaiah 9 (4:12-16), which he adds to Marks account.

327
The portrait advances their theological interests and cannot be historical in the details. The

reason is that both are dependent upon Mark for the opening of Jesus ministry, and there is no

indication that their summary statements depend on independent material.1006 John, which has

already been discredited in this area (see above), claims that Jesus found approval in the Galilee

because of his prior work in Judea and Jerusalem (which the Synoptics do not report).1007

It is only Mark who cares to chart a gradual development in Jesus popularity, beginning

from Capernaum. Mark does not win by process of elimination, of course. But his portrait is

inherently more plausible than the others.

+ Jesus enters Galilee (1:14-15)

+ Jesus calls four disciples (1:16-20)

+ Jesus amazes the attendees of the Capernaum synagogue (1:27)

+ the whole town gathers at Peters house (1:33)

+ Jesus could no longer enter a town, people flock from

every direction (1:45)

+ hearers travel from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the

Jordan, Tyre and Sidon (3:7-12)

There is a lot of theology here, to be sure. The spread of Jesus ministry embodies the message of

his parables: a single sower sows the seed that eventually yields thirty and sixty and a

hundredfold (4:8); the seed produces first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the

head (4:28). In addition, Marks presentation cannot be historical in the particulars of the

1006
As commentators have noted, Matthews summary statement is a patchwork of edited
statements that appear much later on in Mark, including 3:7-12. See Davies and Allison, Gospel
According to Saint Matthew, 1:411-12. Luke betrays knowledge of the fact that the Nazareth
episode was preceded by Jesus activity in Capernaum (4:23: Do here also in your hometown
the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum), and his summary statement also abounds
with Lucan terminology. Cf. R. Alan Culpepper, The Gospel of Luke (NIB 9; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1995), 104.
1007
John 4:45: When he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, since they had
seen what he had done in Jerusalem at the festival.

328
sequence, as it leaves many gaps and surely exaggerates Jesus instant fame. He probably did not

leave the Baptists circle alone.1008 But we are probably in touch with something reliable here,

even if much of the detail has been stripped away by Marks terse and fast-paced narrative. The

reason is simple: Mark did not make up the significance of Capernaum for Jesus early

ministry.1009 He found it in tradition. Consider:

The so-called Day at Capernaum sequence is marked by tight transitions and

even temporal markers (as soon as they left, that evening, in the early
morning), which is a kind of specificity we do not find in Mark except in the
passion narrative. It is no surprise, then, that many critics, even Karl Ludwig
Schmidt, have thought that Mark was working with some pre-existing tradition
here.1010

Mark also highlights the significance of Capernaum for Jesus early activities, as
most of the events in Jesus career before Chapter 6 occur in or around
Capernaum. Many of these betray local knowledge.1011

Mark probably placed originally independent pericopae in contexts that suggest

they happened at Capernaum (cf. e.g. 9:33-37), which may have created historical
falsities. That is strange because Mark does not do this with any other location in

1008
Meier, Companion and Competitors, 21. Meier otherwise thinks that Mark and John
are the most reliable in suggesting that Jesus started with a smaller group of stable disciples,
before attracting larger crowds.
1009
On place names in Mark and reliability, see Paul Barnett, Finding the Historical
Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 210-47; Schrter, From Jesus to the New Testament,
121-23. On Capernaum see Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 166-67.
1010
Schmidt thought the same about a few other sequences (e.g. Mark 4:35-5:43 [storm,
Gerasenes, Jairus]; Mark 6:30-52 [feeding story, walking on the water]). See Der Rahmen, 67-
68, 208, 397 (one can at times find die Trmmer eines Itinerars).
1011
Mark (a) calls Capernaum Jesus home/residence (2:1; 3:19; 9:33; cf. Matt 4:13;
9:1), (b) knows that Peters and Andrews house is there (1:29), (c) and has a story about, of all
people, Peters mother-in-law (1:30-31). (d) Mark knows that Capernaum has a synagogue, (e)
and records an encounter with the (5:22-24, 35-43), who is even named
(Jairus). (f) He assumes that Capernaum is a fishing village, (g) and that custom taxes were
collected there (2:13-14). Cf. Eric F. F. Bishop, Jesus and Capernaum, CBQ 15 (1953): 427-
37; Juyrgen Zangenberg, KapernaumZu Besuch in Jesu eigener Stadt, in Leben am See
Gennesaret: Kulturgeschichtliche Entdeckungen in einer biblischen Region (ed. Gabriele
Fassbeck; Mainz: von Zabern, 2003), 99-103.

329
 the Galilee, as he often prefers a mountain, a village/villages, a crowd or
other unprecise descriptors (cf. 1:39; 3:13; 6:56; 7:17; etc.). The Second Gospel
was not written in the Galilee, knows little of Palestinian geography, and
Capernaum was probably meaningless to most of his audience. So the best
explanation for the prominence of Capernaum for Mark is to suppose that it was
important in his tradition for the early events of Jesus ministry.

The healing of the centurions servant in Q (7:1-10) was said to occur in

Capernaum and it is placed quite early in the document: after the Sermon on the
Plain (6:17-49) and before the Baptist block (7:18-35). Placement in a quasi-
narrative document like Q does not mean much, but the early position is
paralleled in the Gospel of John, which records another version of this Capernaum
healing as only the second of Jesus signs in the Galilee (John 4:46-54).1012

The Fourth Gospel also records an otherwise meaningless transition after the
miracle of water to wine at Cana, which reads: he went down to Capernaum with
his mother, his brothers, and his disciples (
[] ); and they remained there a few days (2:12).
This is inexplicable as a creation of the Fourth Evangelist.1013

In sum, the role of Capernaum in Jesus early activities is firmly established in the tradition. It is

difficult to contest that there is something historical here. Palestinian cities and place-names were

soon irrelevant for the majority of Gospel readers, and one can watch them either drop from the

tradition as time goes on or receive explanatory comments (see e.g. Luke 4:31 [on Capernaum];

1012
See Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 191, 194; Peter J. Judge, The
Royal Official and the Historical Jesus, in Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel (vol. 2 of
John, Jesus, and History; eds. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher; Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2009), 83-92.
1013
Cf. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 235 ([2:12 is] not the product
of any particular interest of the evangelist). It may, in fact, respond to a tradition that appears in
Mark 3:21, 31-35 that John does not like (e.g., Jesus relatives come to restrain him, and his
mother and his brothers [ ] are replaced by those who do
the will of God). Even if not, however, note Richard Bauckham, The Family of Jesus, in Keith
and Hurtado, Jesus among Friends and Enemies, 103-26 at 122: That Capernaum was the base
for Jesus Galilean ministry is probably one of those items of information that John assumes to
be generally known to his readers and hearers, even though he himself does not explicitly say
so.

330
8:26 [on the country of the Gerasenes]; 9:10 [on Bethsaida]). The Gospels preserve a

surprising number of very precise claims about an otherwise inconspicuous place.1014

The relevance of the discussion is this: that Jesus was able to root there (e.g. Mark 2:1 [

]; Matt 9:1 [ ]), all while teaching, healing, and calling disciples in

the area, implies that he was well received in Capernaum, at least for a time.1015 Cities that did

not want him around could drive him out, as happened elsewhere (Mark 5:17). Jesus itinerancy

does not conflict with this view, but likely represents a second-stage development after his

successes in Capernaum.1016 The Gospels indicate that Capernaum served as a home base for

Jesus, which would not be possible had the local population been generally opposed to him.

In my view we cannot say much more about Jesus early ministry with confidence. There

have been a few recent attempts to explain how Jesus popularity grew, but they are one-sided

and overly schematic. There is no reason to think that it was only on account of the exorcisms

that Jesus grew crowds, which he then began to teach, and only later was believed by some to be

the Messiah.1017 We can presume that John the Baptist grew crowds largely on the basis of his

message. Cannot the same be true for Jesus? Even then, however, there is no justification for

creating such sequential stages of activity in his public career, as they have no basis in the

1014
Cf. Eve-Marie Becker, Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie
(WUNT 194; Tbingen: Mohr, 2006), 286-96.
As Matthew Henry observed in Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1217, at
1015

Capernaum, it should seem, he was welcome.

1016
Contra John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the
Stones, Behind the Texts (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 94-96 (who marginalize
Capernaum and believe Jesus was constantly itinerant). Contra also Schrter, Jesus of Nazareth,
103 (Capernaum became important in the post-Easter period on account of it being Peters
hometown).
1017
Smith, Magician, 11, 23-44. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 164, has many positive
things to say about Smiths view.

331
Gospels or in Smiths claims about cultural background.1018 It is important to ask the question of

why Jesus was able to grow the reputation he did, and most historians do not even address it.1019

But unfortunately we cannot say much in answering it. For whatever the cultural or sociological

reasons, Jesus message and actions resonated with people.1020

We are not yet finished with this topic, as we have yet to address the question of

opposition to Jesus and what it entailed. But we have done enough to show that the 19th-century

trope of a Galilean spring is not easily dismissed as a relic of interpretive tradition (which we

saw already in Epiphanius) or due to romantic and colonial fantasies about the distant oriental

Palestine (as we find in Renan and others).1021 Its proponents may have read the Gospels

selectively and credulously, but they were reading the Gospels.

1018
E.g. Smith, Magician, 16: Teachers of the law were not, in this period, made over
into miracle workers. How would one ever demonstrate that?
1019
Perhaps the foremost historian asking such questions is James Crossley; see his
Writing about the Historical Jesus: Historical Explanation and the Big Why Questions, or
Antiquarian Empiricism and Victorian Tomes? JSHJ 7 (2009): 63-90. We ought not to forget
Klausner here, Jesus of Nazareth, 192: if Jesus successfully taught of the kingdom of heaven, it
was simply and solely because of the disordered condition of life in the country, and the bad
economic conditions generally.
1020
For one possibility see Catherine Hezser, The Jesus Movement as a Popular
Judaism for the Unlearned, in JesusGestalt und Gestaltungen: Rezeptionen des Galilers in
Wissenschaft, Kirke und Gesellschaft. Festschrift fur Gerd Theien zum 70. Geburtstag (eds.
Petra von Gemnden, David G. Horrell, and Max Kchler; NTOA 100; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2013), 79-104 (though she overstates her case, especially with assertions like the
later tradition turned [Jesus] into a Torah teacher who competed with Pharisees and scribes).
1021
The latter is surely significant, as more recent studies have identified. Cf. e.g. Halvor
Moxnes, The Construction of Galilee as a Place for the Historical Jesus: The Heritage of the
Nineteenth Century, in Whitelam, Holy Land as Homeland?, 1-18.

332
 7.2. GROWING OPPOSITION

It is obviously false that Jesus first proclaimed an acceptable year and was opposed by no

one.1022 There must have been numerous Galileans who heard of Jesus and did not give him a

second thought, and an equally large number who thought him dangerous, idealistic, or, like his

own family, crazy (Mark 3:21). We will deal with the reception of Jesus message among the

Galilean masses in the next sections. At issue here is the opposition that Jesus faced from certain

Pharisees, scribes, and others learned in the Law of Moses.1023 This conflict factored prominently

in many reconstructions of a Galilean crisis, as we have seen, and I contend that it does indeed

confirm the narrative of early success, growing opposition. In particular, several controversies

presuppose that Jesus was already a popular figure and respond to that. Thus the popularity of

Jesusthe concrete social reality of his movementis essential to the controversy that

developed, and not just Jesus ideas about law or love.

To fully make this case it is necessary to delve into issues that would distract from the

main thrust of this chapter. Thus, I will only summarize here my conclusion and refer readers to

the Appendix for the full case.1024 The fundamental point is that there must have been some

reason that Jesus was worth paying attention to and taking the effort to oppose. New Testament

critics have by and large neglected to address an important question that Chris Keith has raised in

his recent study: Why did the authorities care at all what Jesus thought or did? Why did they not

1022
Epiphanius, Inc. 2.5-6.
1023
Identifying the precise opponents of Jesus in many of these cases is difficult. For an
excellent layout of the problem, see Meier, Companions and Competitors, 332-36. The aim here,
however, is not to reconstruct the relationship between Jesus and any one particular group.
1024
See pp. 400-32 below.

333
dismiss him as a harmless madman?1025 A good hypothesis that attends to the entirety of the

evidence better than other proposals is that Jesus was perceived by some to be a lawbreaker on

account of his early activities, and that he had begun to develop a public reputation and amass a

number of sympathizers. The conflict developed, therefore, because there was concern about a

movement growing around a person who associated with tax collectors and sinners and had

called disciples to do radical things for the sake of his mission. We have here a response to

Jesus Galilean spring.

None of this overturns one of the important conclusions of Chapter 6: namely, that since

Jesus emerged from the controversial Baptist movement, it is unlikely that he expected at the

outset to win everyone to his cause, including the religious learned of his day. We should doubt

that opposition to Jesus from certain sectors of Jewish society was sufficient to rattle his initial

expectations and cause him to change his mind in some fundamental manner. To make that

point, however, is not to imply that the controversy that developed between Jesus and the sages

was inevitable, nor that such controversy was typical of his ministry as a whole from beginning

to end. We have some development here that is not wholly unlike the plotline of a 19th-century

Life of Jesus.

7.3. THE GALILEAN WOES

The effect of the opposition of Pharisees and scribes to Jesus is not clear. We have already seen

that in the 19th-century it was common to contend that that opposition was instrumental in

bringing about the Galilean Storms: a swift and unexpected decline in public enthusiasm about

1025
Keith, Jesus against the Scribal Elite, 13.

334
Jesus.1026 But that view, it is safe to say, is a fiction of the 19th-century, as it depends on at least

two fatal assumptions. One is the belief that the Pharisees controlled first-century Judaism and

could easily manipulate the masses. The Pharisees were not in control of anything, even if they

were popular and influential in some quarters,1027 and the Galileans were all too often the

victims of Christian stereotypes about a fickle and nationalistic Judaism. The second problem

is more significant. It is unlikely that attempts to discredit Jesus were that successful, or

successful enough to have a serious, crisis-inducing effect. The Gospels do indeed contain

sayings that would confirm the idea that certain opponents actively tried to prevent people from

1026
Cf. Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 236. In addition to the
discussion in prior chapters, note Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 279, on Mark 3:6 (the Pharisees
went out and hastened to take council with the Herodians as to how they might destroy him):
This furnishes an important landmark in Jesus career. Not only was he viewed with
disfavor by the Pharisees and the civil authorities, but the people, also, began to cool
towards him. The people venerated the Pharisees, the leaders of Jewish democracy, and it
was as a Pharisee that they had venerated Jesus alsoThe Pharisees instilled into the
people a dislike of Jesus: they said that he was a transgressor and a friend of
transgressorspublicans, sinners, hysterical womenand that his cures were due to
unholy powers.
1027
I do not think we can simply dismiss Josephus in Ant. 13:298 (the Pharisees have
on their side; see also Ant. 13:401-06; 18:15, 17; War 2:162), even if Josephus had an
interest in bolstering the reputation of the Pharisees in the post-70 world. (For doubts about this
common theory, however, see Steve Mason, Josephuss Pharisees: The Narratives, in In Quest
of the Historical Pharisees [eds. Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton; Waco: Baylor University
Press, 2007], 3-40 at 39). The influence among common folk is also implied in 1QHa 12:11;
4Q169 3:5-8. For (perhaps overzealous) attempts to reassert the influence of the Pharisees, pace
Sanderss view (see Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE [London: SCM Press, 1992],
395-412), see Hengel and Deines, E. P. Sanders Common Judaism, Jesus, and the Pharisees,
1-70. See also Joachim Schaper, The Pharisees, in The Early Roman Period (vol. 3 of The
Cambridge History of Judaism; eds. William Horbury et al.; Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1999), 402-27 esp. at 412, 419; Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and
Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2001 [orig. 1988]) (on the Pharisees as the retainer class).

335
sympathizing with Jesus,1028 and if they represent the kinds of things Jesus said, they corroborate

the contention above (and more fully in the Appendix) about concerns over Jesus popularity.

But it would venture into total speculation, and that against our extant evidence, to say that Jesus

lost his audience to his critics. Historians who have staked this claim either make mountains out

of single passages (esp. John 6:66),1029 or they infer the reality of mass rejection on the basis of

some other theological tension they claim to find in the sources (here see Chapter 6.1). Franz

Mussner thought that there was a conspicuous reduction in references to the crowd after Mark 7,

but this simply is not true, unless one ignores Mark 8:1; 9:14; 10:1, 46.1030 Apart from a highly

selective reading, Matthew, Luke, and John do not give this impression either.1031 The social

dynamics of the Jesus movement were probably akin to that of the sign prophets whose

contingency of adherents were dismantled not by bumps and bends along the way (and we could

assume there were several, especially when family members started packing up their belongings

1028
Cf. Matt 23:13: you (scribes and Pharisees) do not go in yourselves (to the kingdom
of Heaven), and when others are going in, you stop them. See also Mark 8:15; 9:42 (?); Matt
10:16, 25; 12:30. See here Rau, Jesus, Freund von Zllnern und Sndern, 101-42, 159-66.
1029
Overstatements like this abound: e.g. Campbell, Life of Christ, 302-03 (John 6:66
evidences a serious and widespread defection); Lon-Dufour, Gospels and the Jesus of
History, 221; Grundmann, Matthus, 365. It is interesting that, in earlier times, this defection
was commonly seen to be not of the crowds but of Jesus 70/2 disciples (for the text does, after
all, say disciples). Cf. e.g. Augustine, Hom. Jo. 1.12; Ep. 173.30.
1030
Mussner, Gab es eine galilaische Krise?, 240-1. Contra also Edersheim, Life and
Times, 2:25 (great crisis in popular feeling); Burgess, Life of Christ, 149; Goguel, Jesus and
the Origins of Christianity, 1:304, 377, 385 (Jesus was left with a very small group of loyal and
faithful disciples); Dufour, Jesus of History, 221 (on John 6:15: When this moment came, he
retired to the hill country and gave up public preaching in Galilee); Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 295.
Cf. Schweitzer, Mystery of the Kingdom of God, 59-64; Monnier, La mission historique, 262;
Oberlinner, Todeserwartung und Todesgewiheit Jesu, 83.
1031
Cf. Albert Descamps, Aux origins du ministre: La Pense de Jesus, RTL 2 (1971):
3-45 at 4 note 2.

336
to follow Theudas to the Jordan), but when the leader of the movement was executed. That was

the crisis.1032

Moreover, the end of Jesus career makes the best sense on the supposition that he had in

Jerusalem a notable contingency of sympathizers, large enough, at least, to worry the Jewish

leadership there and involve the Romans.1033 Jesus was arrested stealthily at night, rather than

during the day in full view of the people. That makes sense if the temple authorities were

concerned there would be a among the people (Mark 14:2; Matt 26:5). Jesus

following also appears to be at issue in John 18:14 (

). A few decades later, Jesus ben Ananias had a controversial message about the

temple and was arrested, questioned, and flogged before being released (Josephus, War 6:300-

09). A host of factors are likely in play as to why Ananias found more lenient treatment

notably, his temple prediction was much less dramatic than Jesus temple action, and there were

no messianic undertones to his activities. But one other such factor, maybe the most important to

my mind, is that Ananas was a loner, and thus not much of a political threat.1034

1032
See here Bruce J. Malina, Criteria for Assessing the Authentic Words of Jesus:
Some Specifications, in Chilton and Evans, Authenticating the Words of Jesus, 27-46 at 35-37
(on the adjourning of a social activity group).
1033
Cf. Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historians Reading of the Gospels (London:
Collins, 1973), 154; Smith, Magician, 38-44; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 288-89, 303 (though
Sanders doubts popularity was a major factor, and also believes Jesus temple action would have
led to a degree of popular rejection); Ellis Revkin, What Crucified Jesus, in Jesus
Jewishness, 226-57 at 240-45; Gnilka, Jesus of Nazareth, 270; Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth,
151; Meier, Companion and Competitors, 24-26 (Jesus power to attract crowds must still have
been fairly strong toward the end of his ministry).
Theodore Weeden, Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth:
1034

Provocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation, Forum 6 (2003): 137-341, does not compel
with his adventurous thesis that the story of Jesus ben Ananias was also known to the
Evangelists, who used it to compose certain details of Jesus last week.

337
 In any case, I am sympathetic to something in the historical logic of the Galilean

Storms, and it is a simple fact that has been attested in page after page of this study: certain

passages in the Gospels are hard to understand unless one posits a backstory of rejection.

Particular sayings of Jesus have struck in similar ways Ante- and Post- Nicene exegetes,

theologians, and critics of Christianity, the writers of harmonies from the Middle Ages through

the Reformation periods, the Enlightenment-era paraphrasers of the Gospels, thinkers all

throughout the modern quest for Jesus, and even the most recent reconstructors of Q. The final

form of the Jesus tradition bears the clear impression of having wrestled with and made

theological sense of a disappointing rejection. Some of this impression must mirror unfortunate

experiences of the early followers of Jesus as they tried to spread the kingdom message. Yet

unless we attribute all of this reflection to the later Church, the notion implicit in the idea of the

Galilean Storms that Jesus too had a dynamic encounter with opposition to his cause, and that

that encounter impacted his teaching, must not be an entirely deceptive one.

Of course, contemporary criticism is not adverse to or ignorant of the notion that Jesus

met rejection in Galilee. Every critic must deal with the Nazareth episode in one way or another

(Mark 6:1-6),1035 an event that not even Lukes artful rewriting could fundamentally alter. Bart

Ehrman had a little two-page section of his Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet where he dealt with

rejection, even claiming that Jesus was not at all well received and that he was rejected by the

vast majority of the people.1036 But in general the investigation of the rejection of Jesus by the

people of Galilee has received little attention apart from those who have proposed some crisis in

the ministry. When mentioned in monographs on Jesus, rejection is more or less a footnote to

1035
See Schrter, Jesus of Nazareth, 101-03.
1036
See Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, 200-02.

338
Jesus public ministry. I wish to contend, in this section and the next, that that underappreciates

its significance for understanding Jesus public career.

Of obvious significance for this topic is one particular saying that has by now in our

study received considerable attention: the so-called Galilean woes. It has been reconstructed by

the Critical Edition of Q as follows:

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the wonders which were performed
among you had occurred in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in
sackcloth and ashes. Yet for Tyre and Sidon it will be more bearable in the
judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will be exalted up to heaven? You will go
down to Hades!1037

If this saying reflects in any way on the ministry of the Jesus, it certainly merits greater attention

than placing it in a catalogue on repentance and judgment so that it becomes perfectly

natural, given the prophetic vocation and role was to announce to Israel that she was pursuing

a path that led to ruin.1038 I do not see how we understand this saying any better by placing it

alongside general maxims about repentance and judgment in the tradition such as the first will

be last and the last first, and unless the tree bears fruit this year it will be cut down.1039 The

passage is not just a general warning about future judgment (though it does, of course, speak of

future judgment), but is clearly occasioned by some concrete experience of rejection in these

Galilean cities.1040 In other words, the saying looks back on past experience as much as it looks

1037
Matt 11:23b-24 may be in Q also.
1038
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 252, 184. On 329-30 he reads the logion to
mean that these cities will be destroyed by the Romans if they do not accept Jesus message.
1039
So Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 183-84, 252-53.
1040
Cf. Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 191-92; Heinz Schrmann, Das
Lukasevangelium (2 vols.; HTKNT 3; Freiburg: Basel, 1969-1994), 2:83 (die negative
Erfahrungen spiegeln); Buchanan, Jesus the King and His Kingdom, 110; Reiser, Jesus and
Judgment, 229; Riniker, Gerichtsverkndigung Jesu, 314-18; Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 148
(10:13-15 looks back on impenitence and unresponsiveness as an accomplished fact, not as
339
forward to the final judgment.1041 This is not to say that the logion is in theological tension with

other sayings in the tradition, just that we should not ignore or flatten its implied backstory by

immediately conflating it with other sayings that touch on similar theological topics.1042

There is, as we have seen, widespread interpretive agreement about the backstory of this

saying, even if the particular historical scenarios constructed on the basis of that interpretation

differ significantly (e.g. rejection of the historical Jesus, some unnamed prophets, the Q

people, and so on).1043 The reason is plain: it is hard to read the logion and not think that its

speaker is disappointed about this response to the Gospel. Davies and Allison wrote in their

Matthew commentary, The text is a testimony to dashed expectations.1044 I see no reason to

something that is to be anticipated); Zeller, Jesus, Q und die Zukunft Israels, 368; James M.
Robinson, The Matthean Trajectory from Q to Mark, in The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected
Essays (eds. Christoph Heil and Jozef Verheyden; BETL 189; Leuven: Leuven University Press,
2005), 599-628 at 623 (presuppose a very minimal success); Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven
des Lebens Jesu, 247 (die Erfahrungen in den drei galilischen Stdten fr Jesus besonders
enttuschend waren).
1041
E.g. Burkitt, Expository Notes, 47: Our Saviour having gone through the cities of
Galilee, preaching the doctrine of repentance, and confirming his doctrine with miracles, and
finding the multitudes, after all his endeavours, remain in their impenitence, he proceeds to
upbraid them everely for that their contempt of gopel-grace.
1042
Careful here was Riniker, Gerichtsverkundung Jesu, 8, who argued that Jesus spoke
of judgment throughout the ministry, yet there was still development in two phases. In the
latter, Jesus had come to think that a change of behavior among his hearers was not possible
(458).
1043
On the ambiguity of that backstory and the notion of persecution, see Sarah E.
Rollens, Persecution in the Social Setting of Q, in Q in Context II: Social Setting and
Archaeological Background of the Sayings Source (ed. Markus Tiwald; BBB 173; Bonn: Bonn
University Press, 2015), 149-64.
1044
Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:270. Cf. the summary
statement from Alan Kirk, The Composition of the Sayings Source, 339: Most place the
formation of the speech on extended diachronic trajectories following the course of various
social histories, frequently that of the wandering itinerants to settled communities, itself not
infrequently coordinated with an optimistic to pessimistic shift in mood and a shift in mission
to Israel to reflection on failure of that mission.

340
disagree, and the pathos of the saying requires some historical explanation. Sanders, following

Bultmann, contended that this saying is a piece of early Christian polemic on account of its

tone,1045 which is precisely the same interpretive basis that crisis theorists and others have placed

the saying late in the ministry of Jesus. Thus, the more important and divisive question before us

is not the question of interpretation but of historical origin. From where does this saying come,

and of whom is the rejection that it laments?

To begin, we must note just how awkwardly this saying fits into its immediate literary

context in Matthew, Luke, and the final form of Q.1046 Matthew (11:20-24) has conjoined the

woes to the Baptist Block (Q 7:18-35) after the saying about Jesus and John being rejected by

this generation.1047 That makes for a nice thematic consistency. The recipients of the saying,

however, are crowds otherwise interested in Jesus who also attended to the call of John in the

wilderness (11:7). On account of the rather drastic shift in implied audience, Matthew provides

an introductory statement that he likely wrote himself: Then he began to reproach the cities in

which most of his deeds of power had been done, because they did not repent (11:20).1048 But

1045
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 110 (the anti-Jewish polemic seems clear enough).
1046
Hence one of the arguments for regarding 10:12-15 as redactional in Q; cf. Sato, Q
und Prophetie, 176; David Catchpole, The Mission Charge in Q, Semeia 55 (1991): 147-74 at
162 (The secondariness of Q 10:13-15 in their present (Luke/Q) context is beyond doubt);
Arland D. Jacobson, The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1992),
143-46; Jonathan L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Reexamination of the
Evidence (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 185; Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, 35
(has struck almost everyone as being out of place); Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes, 177;
John Kloppenborg, Discursive Practices in the Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest for the
Historical Jesus, Synoptic Problems, 366-406 at 404 (almost universally regarded as a
secondary insertion into Qs mission instructions).
1047
For a good study see Joseph Comber, The Composition and Literary Characteristics
of Matt 11:20-24, CBQ 39 (1977): 497-514.
1048
A common view. See e.g. Robinson, Hoffmann, and Kloppenborg, Critical Edition of
Q, 180-81.

341
the saying remains, in this context, out of place and uncalled for, as Lapide attests in

extrapolating on Matthews then (v. 20): namely, when He sent the Apostles to preach

throughout Galilee, and He preached by Himself, though with little fruit and few

conversions.1049 Luke is more awkward still, as Jesus delivers the woes in his mission charge to

the Seventy (10:1-16). That is, Luke has Jesus speaking to his ambassadors about to go on

mission to proclaim the Gospel. Bengel recognized the difficulty of this placement with his

suggestion that it is intimated that these Seventy ambassadors are to go to other cities rather

than to these, and that others are to take warning from the example of these.1050 If Luke has

been faithful to the order of Q herewhich I see no good reason either to affirm or denythen it

is no less awkward there.1051 In sum, there is no way to take the logion as a literary creation in

1049
Lapide, Great Commentary, 2:65. See also Augustine, Cons. 2.32.79 (NPNF1 6:140):
Matthew has kept by the order of his own recollections.
1050
Bengel, Gnomon, 2:91. Cf. Priestley, Harmony, 90, 94; Strauss, Life of Jesus, 344
(These commands and exhortations have been justly pronounced by critics to be unsuitable to
the first mission of the twelve, which, like the alleged mission of the seventy, had no other than
happy resultsthey presuppose the troublous circumstances which supervened after the death of
Jesus, or perhaps in the latter period of his life); Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 285, 295 (Such
bitterness shows clearly that his condition was becoming worse; he saw no progress in his work:
he is indignant and curses).
1051
I do not see the reason for confidence that Luke preserves the correct placement of
this saying in Q. See Schulz, Spruchquelle der Evangelisten, 361; Davies and Allison, Gospel
According to Saint Matthew, 2:265; Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, 416,
434-35. It is clear that Lukes sending of the Seventy foreshadows the subsequent Gentile
mission. In this context, the woes probably function for him to link the mission to the Gentiles to
the failure of the Gospel among Jewish cities. See here Schrter, From Jesus to the New
Testament, 226. But that move is typically Lucan, and is exactly what happens in the Nazareth
episode (which foreshadows the mission to Gentiles). And there, Luke was willing to modify the
order of his sources (e.g. bring Mark 6:1-6 up in his document) to achieve that effect, as is well
known, cf. J. B. Tyson, The Jewish Public in Luke-Acts, NTS 30 (1984): 574-83; R. J. Shirock,
The Growth of the Kingdom in Light of Israels Rejection of Jesus: Structure and Theology in
Luke 12:1-35, NovT 31 (1993): 15-29. The issue is not unlike the placement of Q 22:28-30 (sit
on twelve thrones). This late appearance in Luke is often taken to reflect its placement in Q. See
discussion in Jozef Verheyden, Documenta Q: The Reconstruction of Q 22,28-30, ETL (76):
342
the double tradition. As numerous form critics, Q experts, and historical Jesus scholars have

concluded, this saying, whatever its origin, was once independent of its present contexts,1052 and

probably circulated orally at one time as an isolated logion that the author(s) of Q incorporated

into a new discursive context.1053 In this respect the Galilean woes are akin to the troublesome

temple saying (cf. Mark 14:57-58; 15:29-30; John 2:18-22; cf. Acts 6.14; Gos. Thom. 71), which

also circulated independently and was used in different ways by the Evangelists.1054 The woes do

not raise any noticeable theological or christological difficulties as the temple saying apparently

did (Mark 14:57: , cf. Matt 26:60), but it does seem that the Evangelists do

not know exactly what to make of this judgment logion, and so they do the best they can.1055

They never provide the backstorynever mind Jesus even ministering in Chorazinthat the

saying requires. The saying is clearly directed to opponents who have not repented, not to Jesus

sympathizers, even if it may originally have had some edifying effect for the righteous. In

404-32. But, in the immediate context, Luke has moved up Marks dispute about greatness (9:33-
35) to 22:24-27. Why think he did not do the same with the very next pericope?
1052
See Lhrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, 62-63; Dieter Zeller,
Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder Sitz im Leben beim Q-Material, in Logia: Les Paroles
de Jsus (ed. Jol Delobel; BETL 59; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 395-409 at 404
(the verses originally had a different Sitz im Leben).
Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 224 (the context in Q is unsuitable); Rau, Die
1053

Ablehnung Jesu, 63; Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 242.
1054
See discussion in Donald Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel
of Mark (SBLDS 31; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 143-158; Jacques Schlosser, La parole de
Jsus sur la fin du Temple, NTS 36 (1990): 398-414; Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 328-30.
1055
General patterns of exegesis in the history of interpretation support this. Few exegetes
have found the woes to be of great significance, and so many interpreters simply skip over them.
Origen and Cyril of Alexandria do not mention the woes in their homilies on Luke, and neither
does Bonaventure in his commentary on Luke. Cf. Luz, Matthew, 2:154: Although our text
appears at a decisive location in the Gospel of Matthew, it has attracted little attention in the
history of interpretation. Insightful is Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 76: the woes are not strictly
relevant to the work of the disciples in the mission discourse.

343
Matthew and Luke the woes become a remarkable exemplar of what Jeremias called the

hortatory tendency in his study of the parables of Jesus: sayings once meant for enemies of the

Gospel were made by the later Church to have relevance for its friends.1056

We can infer a few additional things about this saying in its former independent state.

One is that it assumes there are no Christian communities in Tyre and/or Sidon,1057 and perhaps

even that Jesus did not minister there (which may contradict Mark, who is already historically

suspect in this area: Mark 7:24, followed by Matt 15:21).1058 The idea is that these Gentile cities

did not receive the same opportunity to repent because the Gospel was not announced there, so

their fate on the judgment will be less severe. Moreover, there is no reason to call this saying

pro-Gentile. Tyre and Sidon are notoriously wicked Gentile cities in Israels Scriptures (Isa

23:1-12; Jer 47:4; Ezek 26-28; Joel 3:4-8; Amos 1:9-10; Zech 9:2-4), and it is not denied here

that they will be judged. The point is a rhetorical one that their judgment will be less severe

( )a perspective foreign to Protestants but common in Second Temple

Judaism. The use of Tyre and Sidon, then, is not to pit Gentiles versus Jews, but rather to

1056
Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 42-47. He also recognizes that there was a strong
tendency to add conclusions to the parables in the form of generalizing logia(which provided
the) widest possible application (110). It seems that Matthews prefatory v. 20 tries to do
something similar.
1057
As noted by Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in
the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 52. Since
there was a Christian community in Tyre in the fiftiesActs 21:3-6and Christians in Sidon as
wellActs 27:3this saying should be thought to originate before that.
1058
This is one reason why, in many harmonies of the Gospels old and new, the
harmonist has Jesus travel to regions of Tyre and Sidon after delivering this woe. That move was
also made easy by the conflict over handwashing which immediately precedes that journey in
Mark.

344
recall these historic enemies of Israel in a provocative manner.1059 That interpretation finds

support in the interesting way that Q 10:15 (And you, Capernaum, will be exalted up to heaven?

You will go down to Hades!) interacts with Isa 14:13,15, an oracle of judgment against

Babylon.1060 The prideful intimation of this once fearful enemy of Israel (you say in your heart,

I will go up to heavenbut now you will go down to Hades [ ]), is

here applied to the little fishing village of Capernaum. Such would not be a novel use of this text,

as George Nickelsburg has identified a much wider interpretive tradition that adopts the language

of Isa 14:14-17 to castigate opponents.1061 Also relevant is T. Mos. 10:9-10, which takes the

exalted to heaven language literally to indicate that, after the judgment, God will elevate Israel

to look down in triumph over its enemies.1062 Both points lead to the same conclusion: this

saying in no way requires the later pro-Gentile mission as its Sitz im Leben.1063

1059
And the allusion may not have been purely literary, since numismatic studies have
shown that Tyre had an important influence on the Galilean economy. See here literature cited by
John Kloppenborg, Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum, in Tiwald, Q in Context II, 61-92
at 65 note 10.
1060
As is well known: see e.g. Christopher Tuckett, Isaiah in Q, in Isaiah in the New
Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (eds. Steve Moyise, Maarten J. J.
Menken; London; New York: T & T Clark, 2005), 51-62 at 58-59; Gregg, Jesus and the Final
Judgment Sayings in Q, 114-15.
1061
See George W. E. Nickelsburg Jr., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in
Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 56; rev. ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006 [orig.
1972]), 91-93, 97-98, 99-106.
1062
See Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 227.
1063
See Gregg, Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q, 119. Meyer, as noted by
Catchpole, Mission Charge in Q, 173 note 26, concludes that the Q people were on board with
the Gentile mission, yet It does not seem to immediately reflect the Gentile mission but only
(the) parenetic use of Gentiles to condemn Jewish obduracy. See also Risto Uro, Sheep among
the Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions in Q (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia,
1987), 172-73; David Catchpole, The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993), 173; Davies
and Allison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:267; Paul Foster, Is Q a Jewish Christian
Document? Bib 94 (2013): 368-94 at 388; Christopher M. Tuckett, Q and the Church: The
Role of the Christian Community within Judaism according to Q, From the Sayings to the
345
 Given the specificity of the place names, and the unlikelihood that this text arose as a

literary fiction,1064 the number of possibilities for the origin of the logion are limited.1065 It is

unlikely that the saying stems from the sphere of the Q community or Q people, and in

response to the rejection of their message. On the one hand, the case for the Galilean provenance

of Q and its original recipients rests almost entirely on this logion.1066 That reconstruction may

satisfy what seems required by any interpretation of this passagee.g. that it assumes local

knowledge of these areas and reflects an experience of rejection. But why a single saying like

this should be taken to represent the provenance of the entire Q document and its hearers, and not

Gospels, 219-31 at 222-23. Contra Edwards, Theology of Q, 105; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism,
114 (reflect the Gentile mission). On Q as a product of Gentile Christianity, see Fleddermann,
Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, 164-66.
1064
Contra Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, 435-36.
1065
This is not to deny the formal standardization, literary polishing, and other changes
that must have accompanied the transition from Aramaic to Greek. Our interest here is not in
ipsissimia verba.
1066
A point admitted by Tuckett, Q and the History, 102: (the evidence) is virtually
confined to one unit, the woes in Q 10:13-15. Hence the place names there may indicate that
only that individual tradition, rather then [sic] the whole of Q, stems from such a locale. On Q
in the Galilee see Patrick J. Hartin, The Religious Nature of First-Century Galilee as a Setting
for Early Christianity, Neot 27 (1993): 331-50; Leif E. Vaage, Galilean Upstarts: Jesus First
Followers According to Q (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994); Kloppenborg,
Excavating Q, 171-5; 255-61; Jonathan L. Reed, The Social Map of Q, in Conflict and
Invention: Literary, Rhetorical and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q (ed. John
Kloppenborg; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 17-36; idem, Archaeology and
the Galilean Jesus, 182; Milton C. Moreland, Q and the Economics of Early Roman Galilee, in
Lindemann, Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, 561-75; James M. Robinson, Judaism,
Hellenism, ChristianityJesus followers in Galilee until A.D. 70, in Heil and Verheyden,
Sayings Gospel Q, 193-202; Wolfgang Schenk, Die Verwnschung der Kstenorte Q 10,13-15:
Zur Funktion der konkreten Ortsangaben und zur Lokalisierung von Q, in The Synoptic
Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism (ed. Camille Focant; BETL 110;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 477-90 (argues Q was written in Tiberias). For
criticisms see Nicholas H. Taylor, Q and Galilee?, Neot 37 (2003): 283-311; Birger A.
Pearson, A Q Community in Galilee?, NTS 50 (2004): 476-89 at 489-93; Fleddermann, Q: A
Reconstruction and Commentary, 160-61; John P. Meier, Law and Love (vol. 4 of A Marginal
Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus; New York: Doubleday, 2009), 330 note 138.

346
just the provenance of one or more of the traditions available to the compiler of Q, is not clear,

especially for critics who contend that Q underwent several editorial stages.1067 Q as a whole

does not display any conspicuous interest in the Galilee, despite assertions to the contrary. 1068 On

the other hand, the Galilean woes are often taken by critics to have been inspired by the rejection

of the Gospel by Israel.1069 Yet this saying is not about Israel as a whole, but rather three

Galilean cities, two of which we hear little to nothing about in the rest of the Jesus tradition.1070 It

may well take on that more expansive meaning in the final form of Q, but it is the larger context

of Q, and particularly passages such as Q 7:9 (not even in Israel have I found such faith), that

would provide that gloss, nothing in the logion itself. The woes retain a scandal of

particularity.1071 (Two related considerations from the history of interpretation: [1] It is

noteworthy that, as far as I can tell, the Galilean woes do not feature prominently in later

1067
In other words, how can Q 10:13-15, which was not even included in Q1, tell us about
the provenance of the whole? To my knowledge, arguments about social continuity throughout
the literary stages of Q is more assumed by critics than argued.
1068
Contra Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes, 159-64. He has three weak arguments.
(a) Q has links with Matthew and Gos. Thom. (and not Luke, who is most faithful to its
wording and order?), which are from Syria, so this might indicate Galilean provenance. (b) Q
mentions Jonah, who was a northern prophet (and Matthew and Lukes incorporation of this
tradition, and perhaps Matthews intensification of it [since he mentions it 2x], tell us only
about the provenance of their traditions?). (c) Qs placement of the healing of the centurions
boy in Capernaum (7:1) is a redactional creation. Arnal fails to note that a variant of this
miracle appears also in the Fourth Gospel, where it is also in Capernaum (4:46). So it is certainly
not a redactional creation.
1069
So Lhrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, 93; Oberlinner, Todeserwartung und
Todesgewiheit Jesu, 91 (the accusation of guilt implies Israel generally); Kloppenborg,
Formation of Q, 167; Ldemann, Jesus after Two Thousand Years, 174; Fleddermann, Q: A
Reconstruction and Commentary, 165.
1070
Bethsaida: Mark 6:45; 8:22; Luke 9:10; John 1:44; 12:21. Chorazin: nothing.
1071
If one were to invent a saying intended to condemn all Israel, why not pick some
better cities? Cf. Theissen, Gospels in Context, 51 (What a small world is visible here!). See
also Rau, Die Ablehnung Jesu, 65

347
Christian anti-Jewish readings of the Gospel.1072 That is, later Christians will use the woes as

opportunities to reflect on the question of Gods providence and the fate of the unevangelized,

but rarely the damnation of Israel for rejecting the Gospel.1073 That is natural, for the text is ill

suited to that agenda. [2] One finds in the pre-critical commentary tradition great interest in

allegorizing the names of these cities. Of course names in general were commonly regarded

repositories of divine secrets, but there is a practical motive here too related to the readers

experience (or lack thereof): who cares about Capernaum, Bethsaida, and Chorazin? They must

be allegorized to be made relevant.)

There are, as I see it, only three real possibilities for the origin question. One is that the

saying emerged shortly after Easter as one or some of Jesus followers spoke with the authority

of the Lord in pronouncing judgment on those who had rejected the preaching of the Gospel and

the working of wonders. This would have to be very early if the saying was then transmitted in

isolation before being incorporated into Q. A second scenario is that the logion emerged from the

circle of Jesus disciples before Easter as a response to the results of their evangelizing

1072
Though see Opus Imperfectum 26; Hilary, Comm. Matt. 2.10.
1073
Cf. e.g. Augustine, Trac. Jo. 89, who discusses the text in the context of a larger
issue: do people who do not hear the Gospel receive a different judgment than those who hear
and reject it? See also Jerome, Comm. Matt. 2.22-23 (ACCS 1a:227-28) (The wise reader may
inquire and say: If Tyre, Sidon and Sodom could repent at the admonishment of our Savior and
at his wonderful miracles, they are not to blame because they did not at first believe. But the
fault of silence rests in the one who did not want to preach even to those who were likely to
repent. To this charge the response is easy and clear: We do not fathom the decisions of
God..Chorazin and Bethsaida were condemned because they did not want to believe in our
Lord even when he was with them in personSo do not try to fathom the precise time or place
when you may expect the salvation of the believers.); Rupert of Deutz, De Gloria et Honore
Filii Hominis super Mattheum (ed. Hrabanus Haacke; CCCM 29; Turnhout: Brepols, 1979), 281-
84; Anonym. Comm. Matt. (11th century), ad loc. (ed. Bengt Lfstedt; CCCM 159; Turnholt:
Brepols, 2003), 108. In his own study, Luz, Matthew, 2:154, also notes the logion is scarcely
used as polemic against unbelieving Judaism. The possibilities of parenetic interpretation are
very limited.

348
mission(s) in the Galilee.1074 To my knowledge this option has not been seriously considered.

The woes, then, assume that what Jesus had warned them might occur had occurred: if any

place will not welcome youleave, (and) shake off the dust of your feet. By accident or

intention the saying was later placed on the lips of Jesus. And the last is that Jesus said

something like Q 10:13-15 because he perceived himself rejected in these coastal cities. The

inherently retrospective nature of the logion would require that it stems from some later point in

the ministry, as it presupposes prior activities.

I am not sure we can distinguish between the merits of these scenarios, or I am at least

less confident than others who typically make arguments in only one of two ways: either

authentic (from Jesus)1075 or inauthentic (from the post-Easter Church).1076 What the saying

seems to require of its speaker could, in theory, fit all three: working knowledge of these

1074
On the importance of the pre-Easter activity of the disciples for the sayings tradition,
see Heinz Schrmann, Die vorsterlichen Anfnge der Logientradition, in Der historische
Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus: Beitrge zum Christusverstndnis in Forschung und
Verkndigung (eds. Helmut Ristow and Karl Matthiae; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1960), 342-70; Samuel Byrskog, The Transmission of the Jesus Tradition, in Holmn and
Porter, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2:1465-94 at 1476-77.
1075
Cf. Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 76-77; Hoffmann, Theologie der Logienquelle, 303
note 53; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 47-52; Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 224-30; Gnilka, Jesus
of Nazareth, 194; Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 61-62; Riniker, Gerichtsverkndigung Jesu, 315-
29; Gregg, Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q, 123-27; Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic
Prophet, 201; Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 243-44.
Cf. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 112; Ernst Ksemann, The
1076

Beginnings of Christian Theology, in New Testament Questions of Today (trans. W. J.

Montague; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 82-107 at 95; Lhrmann, Die Redaktion der
Logienquelle, 64; Schulz, Spruchquelle der Evangelisten, 362-63; Oberlinner, Todeserwartung
und Todesgewiheit Jesu, 90-93; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 110, 114; Uro, Sheep among the
Wolves, 185-99 (on a pessimistic, redactional layer to the mission charge); Sato, Q und
Prophetie, 197-201; Bernd Kollmann, Jesus und die Christen als Wundertter: Studien zu
Magie, Medizin, und Schamanismus in Antike und Christentum (FRLANT 170; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 318; Ldemann, Jesus after Two Thousand Years, 174;
Boring, Continuing Voice of Jesus, 209-10; Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and
Commentary, 437.

349
cities,1077 some kind of itinerancy,1078 a call for repentance, the working of miracles, the requisite

authority that rejection could put one in danger of the final judgment. I would be inclined to

decide against the anonymous itinerant thesis since we know nothing concrete about the when,

where, and how of such preachers, while we do know that Jesus and his disciples ministered in

precisely these areas.1079 Since we can only weigh relative probabilities, it is not apparent how

one could find the former more probable than the latter. The stress laid on miracles also seems

better suited to a situation during the public career of Jesus than after his death,1080 and the same

could be said of the authority vested in the utterance.

With that said, I am also not sure that ones decision about the original speaker of this

utterance matters as much as critics have thought that it does. The reason is that the saying

reflects on a social reality that puts the identity of the speaker in a position of secondary

importance.1081 It should be obvious that distinguishing between Jesus and his disciples during

1077
Cf. Schmidt, Der Rahmen, 211 (eine persnliche Bekanntschaft mit Chorazin und
Bethsaida ist unerllich).
1078
Cf. Gerd Theissen, Das Neue Testament (Munich: Beck, 2002), 25-29.
1079
Cf. Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 64; Jens Schrter, Jesus of Galilee: The Role of
Location in Understanding Jesus, in Charlesworth and Pokorn, Jesus Research, 36-55.
Relevant here is Bultmanns comment, cited in Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 82 note 46: we
haveno real parallel for Jewish or Gentile Christian missionaries cursing entire cities when
their message was rejected. Dunn has offered some perceptive criticisms of the notion that early
Christians prophets frequently spoke in the name of the risen Christ, see Prophetic I-Sayings
and the Jesus Tradition, Oral Gospel Tradition, 13-40.
1080
Contra Oberlinner, Todeserwartung und Todesgewiheit Jesu, 91-92 (he thinks the
reference to miracles the most serious objection to their historicity). What of Q 7:22-23; 11:20? I
also cannot second his impression that the woes reflect on the ferneren Vergangenheit (90,
italics mine).
1081
There is something right about the logic of Gerd Theissens Sociology of Early
Palestinian Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), in that he does
not distinguish sharply between Jesus and later itinerants. He uses the Jesus movement
inclusively, such that textual material dealing with rejection informs us both about Jesus and his
earliest followers. Recently Crossley, Chaos of History, has taken a similar approach for what he
350
his ministry is of no significance whatsoever. Jesus and his followers constituted a movement,

such that responding to the disciples was the same as responding to Jesus himself.1082 We know

this from some of the controversy stories (cf. Mark 2:18, 24) and other sayings (e.g. Q 10:16;

John 13:20).1083 Moreover, it is likely that Jesus gave his followers authority to speak and act

in his stead (Mark 6:7 and par.; Matt 18:18; John 13:20).1084 To conclude that Q 10:13-15

originates from the missionary experience of the disciples, then, would tell us almost as much as

if Jesus himself were the speaker. Here the categories of authentic and inauthentic are of

little help.1085 There is more room for discontinuity between the original Jesus movement and

later itinerants in the Galilee. But if indeed the saying has a post-Easter genesis, it does not

follow, simply as a matter of argument, that reception of the original Jesus movement in these

same areas was notably different. Critics who would posit some stark distinction here would not

do so on the basis of our great knowledge of Galilean Christianity in this period.1086 The

calls the earliest Palestinian tradition, though his interest is not in our question. See also the
helpful study by Tom Holmn, Knowing about Q and Knowing about Jesus: Mutually
Exclusive Undertakings?, in Lindemann, Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, 497-514
(to which he answers no, e.g.: it is possible to know about Q while at the same time knowing
about Jesus [513]).
1082
On Jesus disciples using Jesus material in their teaching, see Polag, Christologie
der Logienquelle, 121; E. Earl Ellis, Christ and the Future in New Testament History (NovTSup
97; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2000), 3-19; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 285; Allison,
Constructing Jesus, 25-26; Tobias Hgerland, The Role of the Disciples in the Prophetic
Mission of Jesus, in Byrskog and Hgerland, Mission of Jesus, 177-202 esp. at 190, 194-97.
1083
Cf. Matt 10:25: If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much
more will they malign those of his household! Luke 10:16: Whoever listens to you listens to
me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
1084
Paul seems to assume this: 1 Cor 9:1-14; 2 Cor 2:10; Gal 2:7.
1085
On this binary, see Le Donne, Historiographical Jesus, 5, 65-92.
1086
Indeed, we know very little about it. Cf. Jrgen Zangenberg, From the Galilean
Jesus to the Galilean Silence: Earliest Christianity in the Galilee until the Fourth Century CE, in
The Rise and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries of the Common Era (eds.
351
conclusion would rather stem from assumptions about a dramatic situational change caused by

the Easter event, which does not appear justified.

I would contend, then, that regardless of the speaker, the Galilean woes attest to a

situation of importance for the ministry of the historical Jesus: there were familiar audiences that

remained unresponsive to the call for repentance and intractable in the face of deeds of power.

We could also say that even should the wording of woes not go back to the original Jesus

movement, there is reason to think that Jesus response to such rejection would be much the

same.1087 It is notable that the call for repentance (which the woes presuppose has already been

Clare K. Rothschild and Jens Schrter; WUNT 301; Tbingen: Mohr, 2013), 75-108. Moreover,
a contrary narrative may emerge, if Capernaum eventually became something of a hub for
Christianity in the Galilee. Cf. Eccl. Rab. 1.8 (on a Jewish-Christian community there, perhaps
early 2nd century); 7.26 (on Christian heresy in Capernaum). The argument could only hinge on
the assumption that certain changes to the Gospel message due to the Easter event and its
aftermath precipitated a drastic change in the movements reception in the Galilee. But that
typical Bultmannian line of argument only turns Easter into a magic wand that being waved,
somehow explains things (so Allison, Constructing Jesus, 244; cf. Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 177
[magic top hat]). It is also a somewhat ironic contention, given scholarship on Q and Galilean
Christianity that has sometimes argued, though not persuasively, that Galilean followers of Jesus
had little interest in cross and resurrection and simply continued to take up his teachings about
the kingdom. For more on Christianity in the Galilee, see Howard Clark Kee, Early Christianity
in the Galilee: Reassessing the Evidence from the Gospels, in The Galilee in Late Antiquity (ed.
Lee I. Levine; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 3-22; Sen Freyne,
Christianity in Sepphoris and in Galilee, in Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays (WUNT
125; Tbingen: Mohr, 2000), 299-307; idem, The Jesus Movement and Its Expansion: Meaning
and Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 244-72; Eve-Marie Becker, Jesus and
Capernaum in the Apostolic Age: Balancing Sources and Their Evidence, in Byrskog and
Hgerland, Mission of Jesus, 113-40.
1087
See Polag, Christologie der Logienquelle, 122. Jacobson, Literary Unity of Q, 106,
wrote that Q and Mark share a tradition about sending of messengers to call Israel to repentance
and, should that fail, to announce judgment upon Israel. That is exactly right. The upshot is that
the Galilean woes in Q, while perhaps at home in Qs distinct theological profile of judgment,
are also quite at home in that tradition Mark holds in common with Q. It should also be noted
that many Q scholars have thought Q 10:13-15, even if redactional in context, has that same
message of judgment intimated in the mission charge itself; see e.g. Hoffmann, Theologie der
Logienquelle, 63, 289; Polag, Christologie der Logienquelle, 70; Uro, Sheep among the Wolves,
157-58.

352
issued), and the warning of coming judgment, are not matters of interest only for later

Christiansthey are rather topics that, like restoration eschatology in general, bind Jesus

together with his forerunner and the movement that emerged after his death. Bracketing Jesus are

John the Baptists demand to bear fruits worthy of repentance because the axe is already at

the foot of the trees (Matt 3:8, 10), and Pauls message to turn to God from idols and trust in

Jesus to be saved from the coming wrath (1 Thess 1:9, 10).1088 The Galilean woes capture the

scope and urgency of the message of one who claimed that response to him in the present

decided ones fate on the last day.1089

At this point we can draw two conclusions that bear marked resemblance to the crisis

theory. First, there must be some development here in terms of Jesus reception on the northern

shore of the Sea.1090 The woe over Capernaum is particularly striking considering the positive

traditions about Capernaum for Jesus early ministry as discussed above, since it is clear that the

1088
On Jesus and the preaching of repentance, cf. Riches, Transformation of Judaism, 87;
Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (trans. James Greig; New York:
Crossroad, 1981), 59-62; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 498-500; James Crossley, The Semitic
Background to Repentance in the Teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus, JSHJ 2 (2004): 138-
57; idem, Chaos of History, 108-09.
1089
Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 158: the final decision will turn on himself. See also
John Downing, Jesus and Martyrdom, JTS 14 (1963): 279-93 at 286-87; Borg, Conflict,
Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus, 229; Gnilka, Jesus of Nazareth, 149, 158;
Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 58-59; Jens Schrter, Zeichenhandlung angesichts des Reiches
Gottes in der altesten Jesusberlieferung, BTZ 20 (2003): 157-78; Stettler, Das letzte Gericht,
206-19.
1090
As recognized already by Otfried of Weissenberg, Ex. Matt. ad loc. (9th century) (ed.
B. Lfstedt), 162 (my translation): the Lord laments those cities which once had the mystery of
God (que quondam mysterium Dei tenuerunt) and were hesitant to generate the fruit of virtue, in
whom also spiritual messengers had been sent Note also that, in the mid-17th century, John
Trapp, Matthew to Revelation (vol. 5 of A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments; repr.
Eureka: Tanski, 1997 [orig. 1662]), 163, had explained that the rejection of Jesus implied in the
Galilean woes was due to the work of the Pharisees, who made less account of our Saviours
doctrine or miracles. See also Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:334; Casey,
Jesus of Nazareth, 351.

353
fishing village functioned for some time as his home base. We have some change in situation,

even though we cannot know when the woes were delivered, or precisely why. It is tempting to

turn to the sixth Chapter of John for illumination, which is a move that many crisis theorists also

made, though on different grounds.1091 John 6 evidences several points of contact with traditions

that were also available to Mark, and even in the same sequence: feeding the multitude, the

walking on the water, the demand for a sign, Peters confession (cf. Mark 6:33-46; 6:47-52;

8:11-13; 8:27-30).1092 It is in this context that John witnesses to a conflict between Jesus and the

1091
Especially attractive to many crisis theorists, as we have seen, was the tradition of the
attempt to make Jesus king after the feeding story, which caused Jesus to run away (John 6:15).
It is difficult to know what to do with this tradition historically. While Mark does not mention it,
he may betray that there was something like it in his tradition he shares with John for the feeding
and walking on the water sequence, since Jesus oddly, and rather inexplicably in Marks
narrative, compels (, Mark 6:45) his disciples into the boat after the feeding. Does
this presuppose the scenario that John mentions? Moreover, given Marks attempt to distance
Jesus from violent messianism, it would not be surprising if he did in fact leave out traditions
that complicated that portrait. See discussion in Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity,
2:363-69; Hugh Montefiore, Revolt in the Desert? (Mark vi. 30ff), NTS 8 (1961): 135-41;
Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 213-22; Ernst Bammel, The Feeding of the
Multitude, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day (eds. Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 211-40; Paul N. Anderson, The Fourth Gospel
and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered (London; New York: T & T Clark,
2006), 138-40; Michael J. Wilkins, Peters Declaration concerning Jesus Identity in Caesarea
Philippi, in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus (eds. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L.
Webb; WUNT 247; Tbingen: Mohr, 2009), 293-382 at 327-29; D. Moody Smith, Jesus
Tradition in the Gospel of John, in Holmn and Porter, Handbook for the Study of the Historical
Jesus, 3:1997-2040 at 2005-06. I think Dodd is right, in general, that it is more likely to find the
toning down of apparently political features if the tradition originally contained such features,
than to find reasons why they should be given enhanced importance in the development of a
tradition originally innocent of them (215). Nevertheless, given Johns motif of
misunderstanding Jesus on a physical or earthly plane (e.g. 2:19-21; 3:4; 4:14; 7:35; etc.), and of
Jesus kingdom being not of his world (18:36), Dodd overstates matters when he says he
knows of no plausible theological motive for such an addition (215). For doubts about
historicity, see Rudolf Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium (4 vols.; HThKNT 4; Freiburg:
Herder, 1965-84), 2:23-27. There is no substantive engagement with this tradition in the 2009
Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel.
1092
On these comparisons see Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 196;
Franois Vouga, Le quatrime vangile comme interprte de la tradition synoptique: Jean 6, in
John and the Synoptics (ed. Adelbert Denaux; BETL 101; Leuven: Leuven University Press,
354
locals in the Capernaum synagogue, after which many of his disciples turned back and no

longer went about with him (John 6:66). The setting in Capernaum is odd because John

otherwise makes little of Jesus presence of Capernaum, and when he does, he is likely in touch

with earlier tradition (cf. John 2:12 and Mark 3:21). Of course the immediate cause of the

offense in v. 66 is Johns bread of life discourse, which cannot be traced to the historical Jesus.

But as is often the case with John, there are likely bits of preexisting material here that the

Evangelist has used in crafting this discourse.1093 We know, at the very least, that a bread motif

binds together the middle chapters of Mark that contain these parallels with John 6.1094 It is

plausible, then, that Johns tradition memorialized in some way Jesus rejection in Capernaum at

a later point in his ministry (e.g. after or around the time of the feeding of the five thousand), and

John has made of that what he could. This argument would find support in the editorial comment

that the Evangelist provides to explain the rejection: For Jesus knew from the first who were the

ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him (6:64). This comment,

like others in the Gospel, corrects possible misinterpretations of what is going on (e.g. 4:2 [it

was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized]). The Evangelist says, to paraphrase: do

1992), 261-79; Roger David Aus, Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background
of Mark 6:30-44 par. and John 6:1-15 (Lanham: University Press of America, 2010), 169-76.
1093
See Brown, Gospel According to John, 1:275: the skeleton of the discoursemay
well have been supplied by the tradition (see also 263). In Browns later work, The Community
of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 73-74, he seems to be less confident
than in his commentary (cf. pp. 1:300-01) that John 6:66 reflects some historical event in the
ministry of Jesus. See also J. Painter, Tradition and Interpretation in John 6, NTS 35 (1989):
421-50.
1094
Also note this: we know that John here intertwines elements of the rejection story at
Nazareth with the Capernaum synagogue speech. Cf. Mark 6:3 with John 6:42: And they were
saying, Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How now dies he
say that he has come down from heaven? John is aware of the rejected prophet logion
associated with Nazareth in 4:44 (cf. Mark 6:4).

355
not think that this rejection took Jesus by surprise; he rather knew it from the first.1095 Are we to

suppose that John invented the rejection, only then to explain it away immediately with this

editorial comment? That strains credulity. If this line of argument is at all on target, then the

Galilean woes, preserved only in Q, may indeed reflect on some painful experience of rejection

that was also memorialized in another Gospel tradition, albeit in muted form.1096

The crisis theory has also been attractive in its recognition that the Galilean woes give

voice to disappointment about rejection. As Chapter 6.3 argued, proposals about a Galilean crisis

may have too often forgotten that Jesus got his start under John the Baptist who had opponents of

his own, was rejected by certain hearers, and was eventually arrested and executed. Jesus

surely did not embark on his ministry with a nave optimism about winning all Israel to his

cause.1097 But Jesus also believed in God and probably saw himself as a key player in the end-

time drama. Just as well, then, he must have conducted his ministry, and sent out his disciples,

with the prayerful hope that his proclamation of the kingdom would be met with repentance, and

that the people would respond positively to his message.1098 As Cadoux rightly remarked,

anything else would be oddly fatalistic.1099 Rejection would not require Jesus to change his

1095
And has been read thus. Cf. e.g. Hilary, Trin. 9.59: Jesus Christ knows the thoughts
of the mind.by its virtue his nature could perceive the unborn future and forsee the awaking of
passions yet dormant in the mind. See also Augustine, Tract. Jo. 27.8.
1096
Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 221, offered this cogent
observation: that we have sayings in the Gospels like Luke 22:28 (which speak of the disciples
remaining with Jesus in his struggles), warnings about being scandalized, or ashamed of
him before people, or the danger of backsliding, make sense if there had been numerous actual
instances of such conductand critics would not have to assume that such sayings are invariably
a reading back of the experience of the early Church.
1097
As discussed above, pp. 293-94. Cf. Salvatorelli, From Locke to Reitzenstein, 303.
Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, 302 note 2: Jesus complains that he has labored in vain
1098

and we must ascribe to him those emotions without which a human heart cannot live on earth.
1099
Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 187.
356
theological program, but it must have been disappointing all the same. The call for repentance, in

general, demands a rather paradoxical joining of both pessimism and hope: pessimism that things

are bad enough the call is needed, hope that change for the better is possible. There is a necessary

open-endedness.

There is another side to Jesus call for repentance that would no doubt add to the

disappointment, and that is its eschatological background.1100 Almost as common as the

expectation for the ingathering of the lost tribes is the expectation that the end (and, for many

writers, the ingathering itself) would be preceded if not occasioned by1101 mass repentance.1102 I

have discussed the idea elsewhere in the context of understanding Johns baptism of

repentance, which I contend was inspired by this hope.1103 It probably also motivated Pauls

work to effect the turning of the Gentiles to God in the last hour, as the Scriptures foretold.1104

1100
Cf. Hiers, Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 52-53; Dale C. Allison Jr.,
Romans 11:11-15: A Suggestion, PRSt 12 (1985): 23-30 at 24-26.
1101
E. C. Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology: the Hulsean Prize Essay for 1908
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), contended that Jesus call for repentance was
intended to meet the conditions necessary for the kingdom to come. On the conditionality of the
end, see Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, 70; Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, 192-
204.
1102
This view appears presupposed by Acts 3:19-21 (

). Cf.
Zech 12:10-13:2; Bar 2:30-34; Tob 13:5; Jub 1:13, 15 (cf. 1:22-25); 23:26-30; Pss. Sol. 18:4-7;
T. Dan. 6:4; T. Sim. 6:2-7; T. Zeb. 9:7-9; T. Jud. 23.5; T. Iss. 6:3-4; T. Benj. 10:7, 11; T. Mos.
3:4-6; 2 Bar. 78:6-7; 84:2; 4 Ezra 13:9-13; Apoc. Ab. 29; Sib. Or. 4:152-70; Philo, Praem. 162-
65; CD 4:2, 6:4, 8:16, 15:7-17, 20:17; 1QS 3.2-12, 10.20; 1QH 2.9; 14:24; b. Sanh. 97b-98a (If
Israel were to repent, they would straightaway be redeemed [as one of several views on the
question]); b. Yoma 86b (Great is repentance which hastens the redemption).
1103
Ferda, John the Baptist, Isaiah 40, and the Ingathering of the Exiles, 159-63, 167-
74.
Cf. Paula Fredriksen, Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope:
1104

Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2, JTS 42 (1991): 532-64; Jrgen Becker, Endzeitliche
Volkermission und antiochenische Christologie, in Eschatologie und Schpfung: Festschrift fr
357
Since Jesus most likely shared this view as part and parcel of his larger program of

eschatological restoration,1105 how could it not have intensified his expectation and hope that

people would heed his call to repent and believe in the Gospel? When it turned out that people

did not advance his cause as that eschatological vision might have lead one to believe

particularly in cities where he devoted considerable time and effortwould not disappointment

follow?1106 We should note that this contention turns Schweitzers ideas about eschatological

dogma on its head. It could in fact have been Jesus expectation to find repentance in the final

Erich Grsser zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (eds. Martin Evang, Helmut Merklein, and Michael
Wolter; BZNW 89; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 1-22; J. C. Miller, The Jewish Context of Pauls
Gentile Mission, TynBul 58 (2007): 101-15.
1105
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, is inconsistent when he claims there is very little
evidence which connects Jesus directly with the motif of collective, national repentance in view
of the eschaton (108), yet says confidently that John the Baptist had a message with one basic
thrust: to repent in view of the coming judgment (239, see also 109, 112-15, 206). He doubts
the connection with Jesus only because of what he calls a relative lack of material on the
question (113). That judgment is up for debate; see Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The
Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 172-73; Casey, Jesus
of Nazareth, 282-84. But a more important point: do we really have more material on John the
Baptist that would inspire his confidence? It is only because so little of Johns message has been
preserved by the evangelists that their few mentions of repentance stand out proportionally. A
quantitative approach to this question is not a fruitful way to proceed.
1106
To say this is not to imply that Jesus had a realistic strategy to attain his goals.
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 226, rightly doubts the effectiveness of Jesus tactics if he intended
to be widely accepted. See also here Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 402; Dunn, Jesus
Remembered, 516. In any case, Jesus did call disciples with the intent of sending them out on
mission, which shows some calculation. See Bousset, Jesus, 60-61. His choice to root in
Capernaum may also have been strategic. On this see Bruce J. Malina, Windows on the World of
Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press), 91. Moreover, there were most likely live
hopes that the ingathering of the tribes would begin in the Galilee: e.g. precisely the home of the
lost tribes of Israel. Cf. Lev. Rab. 9. Also interesting here is a Jewish-Christian interpretation
of Isa 8-9 known to Jerome (Comm. Is. 130 [on 9:1] [PL 24:128]) that expected the work of
salvation to begin in the north where the exile first began. See here A. F. J. Klijn, Jerome's
quotations from a Nazorean interpretation of Isaiah, RSR 60 (1972): 241-55 at 251-52. If true,
this tradition would offer a good albeit circumstantial explanation for why Jesus moved to the
Galilee after leaving John, since the Baptizers location by the Jordan in the wilderness was also
theologically evocative. Jesus had positioned himself.

358
hour that opened him to a more bitter experience of disappointment, rather than shielded him

from it. Schweitzer, we recall, used the notion of eschatological dogma to criticize the 19th-

century Lives that had Jesus develop and change his perspective on the basis of his experiences.

Far too many critics have been unable to resist the temptation to say more, but anything

beyond this point is either exaggeration or speculation. There is no reason to infer from the

Galilean woes that Jesus was rejected by Israel, nor that his work in the wider Galilee is

completed,1107 and far less that this constituted a definitive rejection-event that prompted him

to leave Galilee and travel to Jerusalem for the last time.1108 We can affirm that the Galilean

woes are a response of the Jesus movement to new developments, and disappointing

developments at that, without taking the woes as evidence of a crisis in the ministry or some

change of mind on Jesus part. It is precisely here, after all, that Jesus sounds like John the

Baptist.1109 The woes attest not to a situation of rejection, but rather occasions of rejection,

albeit particularly striking and significant ones.

1107
Contra Bacon, Story of Jesus, 102 (his ministry of mighty works among them is
over); Dodd, Founder of Christianity, 398 (This utterance belongs to some particular occasion,
and it looks back on a period of unfruitful work in Galilee which is now regarded as closed);
Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, 476; Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 229; Riniker, Gerichtsverkndigung
Jesu, 458. The same criticism would apply for those reconstructing the attitude of the Q people
to their contemporaries, so Schulz, Spruchquelle der Evangelisten, 365 (impenitence bedingt
den definitive Ausschlu aus der Basileia).
1108
Contra Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 240. I concur with
Oberlinner, Todeserwartung und Todesgewiheit Jesu, 103, that it is dubious to suppose a
period of rejection (Ablehnung) replaced a period of offer (Angebot), such that Jesus ceased
the offer: Kann und mu man sicherlich Erfahrungen Jesu annehmen, da seine Botschaft neben
Zustimmung auch Ablehnung gefunden hat, diese Erfahrung sich vielleicht im Lauf seines
ffentlichen Wirkens verstrkt zeigte und damit auch das Bewutsein und die Erwartungen Jesu
bestimmte, so kann man doch wohl in keener einzigen Situation vom einem Ende der
Angebotszeit sprechen. For this criticism see already Rudolf Bultmanns essay, Die Frage
nach der Echtheit von Mt 16, 17-19, TBl 20 (1941): 265-79. See also Meyer, Christus Faber, 83
(Jesus never gave up on his mission to all Israel).
1109
So Meier, Companions and Competitors, 439.

359
 In confirmation of this final point it should be recognized that the woes are not without

parallel in the Gospels. The best analogy to the Q saying is the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth,

which was also a significant and painful memory that has been softened in its reception by the

Evangelists. Rejection in Nazareth was not cause for a change of mind, a new period of the

ministry, or reason for him to leave the Galilee. As far as we can tell, he simply did not go back

there, which tends to agree with Jesus practice elsewhere as the Gospels attest in both narrative

and sayings material (Mark 6:10-11; Q 10:10-12; Luke 9:52-56).1110 We should probably infer

no more from the Galilean woes.1111 For some reason the rejection at Nazareth was not

considered a significant enough moment in the ministry for 19th- and 20th-century critics to

periodize their Lives of Jesus around it, and that was probably wise.

7.4. THEOLOGIZING REJECTION

One particularly interesting feature of the rejection at Nazareth episode is the multiply attested

saying that reads, according to Mark, a prophet is not without honor except in his hometown,

among his own kin, and in his house (6:4).1112 Rejection at Nazareth, we should presume, did

not cause Jesus to think of himself as a prophet for the first time. Nor did it prompt a sudden

interest in the Scriptures of Israel and the relevance of its heroes for his own career. But we

1110
On the sayings see Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2:329: we cannot
imagine that the activity of Jesus would differ greatly from the method which he told his
disciples to use on their missionary tours.
1111
Though it should be noted that, while the Synoptics do not record Jesus entering
Nazareth after his rejection there (probably because he did not), Matthew records Jesus there
again later in his Gospel (17:24-27). It is not apparent, however, that Matthew was interested or
concerned with such narrative matters. In Luke Jesus does not again enter Capernaum, as he is
by this time on his way to Jerusalem (9:51).
1112
The wording differs according to each Gospel, but it is not of much consequence.
Matt 13:57 omits Marks , Luke 4:24 reads that no prophet is
in his hometown, and John 4:44 reads that a prophet does not have in his hometown.

360
would not have the prophet saying had Jesus not in fact been rejected there. The saying is a

rationalization of an unfortunate event. To ones surprise in hearing that Jesus was rejected

among people who knew him well, it responds, Well, that is how it is with prophets. It should

be expected.

The history of Christian theology is filled with attempts to make theological sense of the

rejection of the Gospel. The New Testament itself was of crucial influence here. Paul wrote that

non-Christian Jews do not understand the true import of the Scriptures because a veil lies over

their minds (2 Cor 3:14). Acts has the stoners of Stephen, in a highly symbolic gesture, cover

their ears at his claims to see Jesus standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:57). The scoffers

in 2 Peter willfully ignore the nature of Gods created order (2 Pet 3:5). More starkly defined

boundary lines between Jews and Christians in later centuries accentuated such perspectives.

Justin Martyr: you are a people hard of heart, and without understanding, and
blind, and lame, and sons in whom there is no faith.1113

Tertullian: That they should not believe the first comingbut they would have
believed had they understood, and would have attained salvation had they
believedthat was the result of their sins.1114

Athanasius: opponents of Jesus when convicted by the Truth, and unable to

confront it, used evasions.1115

Cyprian: God had foretold that the Messiah would come, but he was rejected on
account of their blindness of wisdom and intelligence.1116

Cyril of Alexandria: Jesus was rejected at Nazareth because their violence was
irrational and their envy untamed.1117
1113
Justin Martyr, Dial. 27.4 (trans. A. Lukyn Williams; London: SPCK, 1930), 54-55.
1114
Tertullian, Apol. 20.14 (ANF 10:64).
1115
Athanasius, Decr. 1.1 (NPNF2 4:150).
1116
Cyprian, [Idol.] 6.12 (ANF 5:468).
1117
Cyril of Alexandria, Hom. Luc. 12 (ACCS 3:82).

361
 Cornelius Lapide: Concerning Luke 2:33 (rising and falling of many in Israel),
God did this directly with the intention of drawing all the Israelites to the faith of
Christ, that He might so bring them into His church and save them; but He
foresaw that a great part of them would, by reason of their wickedness, speak
against Christ when He came, and would strike against Him as on a stone of
offence, and that so they would be broken, and fall into ruin both temporal and
eternal. Yet He would not change His resolve of sending Christ, but would permit
this rebellion and speaking against Him on the part of the Jews in order that it
might be the occasion for S. Paul and the Apostles to transfer the preaching of the
Gospel from them who resisted it to the Gentiles.1118

There are generally two different strategies adopted in these selections: the failure is due to some

moral deficiency on the part of the detractors, or the failure is actually part of Gods mysterious

divine plan.1119 All are inherently retrospective. They look back to explain why a seemingly

unfortunate event was actually not unexpected.

Critics have been less eager to say that the historical Jesus advanced similar rationalizing

strategies.1120 That is somewhat justifiable given the Gospels expend a good deal of effort to

theologize the scandal of the crossthe pinnacle moment of the rejection of Jesus from the

view of the post-Easter Church.1121 That perspective was not possible during the life of Jesus.

1118
Lapide, Great Commentary, 3:117 (italics orig.).
1119
For a detailed study of Alfonso de Espina, see S. J. McMichael, Did Isaiah Foretell
Jewish Blindness and Suffering for not Accepting Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah? A Medieval
Perspective, BBR 26 (1996): 144-51. Such strategies are not unique to the Christian movement,
of course. Cf. Cf. Gabriele Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways
between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 155: at Qumran
concepts such as dualism, individual predestination and self-segregation strengthened the
identity and unity of the group, provided a way of explaining the suffering of the chosen and the
opposition of outsiders, and targeted the adversaries as the devils party.
1120
Unless I have missed something, I do not recall a single instance in Bultmanns
History of the Synoptic Tradition where he claims some rationalization of rejection stems from
the historical Jesus. For him it is a signature of the early Church.
1121
As the speeches in Acts show: when there is talk about Jesus being rejected, his
death is in mind. See 2:23; 5:30; 7:52; 10:39; 13:27. On these speeches see Robert C. Tannehill,
362
Moreover, it is true that a number of sayings seem to assume the rejection of the mission of later

communities of believers rather than Jesus own. These are particularly frequent in the Gospel of

John: people reject Jesus because they love darkness rather than light (3:19; cf. 7:7; 8:43;

12:43), do not know the Father (5:37-38; 8:19), do not believe the Scriptures (5:46-47), and were

actually never chosen by God in the first place (6:65, 70; 10:14, 26; 17:6).1122

Nevertheless, something is wrong when critics can take sayings about this generation

or statements about blindness to function differently depending on nothing more than the

subject doing the talking. For the form critics or others interested in the life of the early Church,

these sayings are almost always thought to reflect on some disappointing set of circumstances.

They are taken as a kind of reactionary, contextual theology. For the critics who think these

traditions stem from Jesus, however, they are often taken (or assumed) to be stable features of his

kingdom message. For Jesus they are anticipatory and forward looking; for the Church

reactionary and backward looking.

I think it highly unlikely in principle that the Jesus tradition has been overlain here with a

later theological construct. I wish to suggest that what we find in the Gospels, the New

Testament, and later Christian theology at large is a continuation and intensification of

something begun by Jesus himself as he wrestled with the significance of opposition to his

The Functions of Peters Mission Speeches in the Narrative of Acts, NTS 37 (1991): 400-14.
See also Sib. Or. 8.269-335; Apol. Arist. (Syriac) 2.
1122
John 6:64: But among you are some who do not believe, for Jesus knew from the
first who were the ones who did not believe him, and who was the one that would betray him.
Gregory the Great once claimed that Jesus sent the disciples to Israel first so that, when they
refused to be heeded, they could call the Gentiles (Hom. ev. 4.1).

363
cause.1123 This contention is not new, obviously, but rather reframes that which is old. Sayings

that have surfaced numerous times in this study as purported evidence for a Galilean crisis or

otherwise unknown crises in the life of post-Easter churches (esp. the Q people) are the primary

evidence here. My hope is to show that there is more material relevant to this topic than recent

critics have assumed.

To contextualize the argument, it should be noted at the outset that a number of Jesus

teachings are easily taken as responses to questions or criticisms about his activities, whether

actual or expected.1124 The Parable of the Sower has often been taken this way by interpreters.1125

1123
So Rau Q-Forschung und Jesusforschung, 401, is probably right that Jesus own
experience of rejection, and the memory of that, provided the focus for Q on this matter. See also
Tuckett, Q and the Historical Jesus, 470-71 (on the polemic of Q2 and the Jesus of history).
1124
See here Saunders, Jesus in the Gospels, 88-89; Perrin, Rediscovering, 84-86;
Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, 153-55 (gospel traditions which point
to Jesus rejection by sections of the society in which he was active; these traditions also draw
attention, indirectly, to the unpropitious outward circumstances of the ministry of Jesus. There is
a striking contrast between the claims of Jesus and the response they drew); William Farmer,
Reflections upon the Historical Perimeters for Understanding the Aims of Jesus, in Chilson
and Evans, Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, 59-82 at 69-80; Trrech, Jesus: An Uncommon
Journey, 225-27; Michael Wolter, Jesus as a Teller of Parables: On Jesus Self-Interpretation in
His Parables, in Charlesworth and Pokorn, Jesus Research, 123-39.
1125
Cf. e.g. Adolf Jlicher, Auslegung der Gleichnisreden der drei ersten Evangelien
(vol. 2 of Die Gleichnisreden Jesu; 2nd ed.; Tbingen: Mohr, 1910 [orig. 1888-89]), 537 (waren
es auch eigene Erfahrungen Jesu, die er da rechtfertigte); Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, 181
(He is in effect thinking aloud about the fortunes of His work in Galilee, with its mixture of
failure and success); Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 151 (responding to apparently ineffectual
preachingbitter hostilityincreasing desertions); Nils A. Dahl, The Parables of Growth, ST
5 (1951): 132-65 at 154 (his work might seem to be a mis-achievement, having no, or no
enduring results); Hans Weder, Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern (3rd ed.; FRLANT 120;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984 [orig. 1978]), 110 (the parable refers to the
Geschick of Jesus proclamation); Scott, Hear then the Parable, 361-62; Ehrman, Jesus:
Apocalyptic Prophet, 202 (the implication of many of his parables is that the reason the
Kingdom has such a small and inauspicious beginning is that most of his proclamation is falling
on deaf ears); Hoppe How did Jesus Understand His Death?, 158-63.

364
For these traditions we may not need to posit a backstory of rejection per se, but we nevertheless

see, again, the dynamic nature of Jesus teaching.

implied question/criticism: response:

the kingdom doesnt look as impressive as (a) the kingdom is like a mustard seed: it is
your teachings imply, Jesus small and inconspicuous now, but it will soon
grow (cf. Mark 4:30-32 and par.).
(b) the kingdom is like leaven, it will soon
spread throughout the whole dough (Q 13:20-
21).

why do you associate with those who have (a) it is the sick who need a doctor, not those
separated themselves from Israels covenant? who are well (Mark 2:17 and par.).
(b) it is the character of God to seek the single
lost sheep apart from the ninety nine others (Q
15:4), or to rejoice over a lost coin (Luke 15:8-
10).
(c) God welcomes the repentant sinner like a
father would welcome his prodigal son (Luke
15:11-32).

why do you not root out the sinners and (a) the final judgment will sort out the weeds
unrighteous persons among your following? from the good crop (Matt 13:24-30)
(b) the final judgment will sort out the good
fish from the bad (Matt 13:47-50).

Figure 4. Teaching and Response

There is no reason to think that the questions created the theology of the responses, and it is not

the objective here to offer a reductionist account of the origins of Jesus teaching. I do not want

to be misunderstood. The point is this: even if Jesus is simply clarifying what he thought about

the kingdom, such statements seem to assume questions about his activity as their Sitz im Leben.

Sometimes the contexts of these passages in the Gospels are helpful for recovering that implied

365
question (cf. e.g. Mark 2:16-17), while in other cases the tradition has decontextualized and

made static what was originally reactionary.

There must be a number of other things in the Gospels that are responsive like this. The

itinerant nature of Jesus ministry makes his teachings, like the Epistles of Paul, occasional. That

is, Jesus taught particular audiences in particular settings for particular purposes. As such, we

may expect that there are a number of things in the Gospels that are only there because some

situation in the ministry of Jesus required it, just as we have Pauls thoughts on resurrection in 1

Cor 15 only because of confusion in Corinth on the matter. The Galilean woes were delivered,

we may presume, not because they constituted some essential and repeatable feature of Jesus

kingdom message, but because a very contingent series of events summoned them forth.1126

I am intrigued here by the crisis theory because of the contention that a number of Jesus

teachings about the judgment and other matters were occasional in this manner. There would be

no foolproof way to determine this, of course. It would have to be, like all interpretation,

1126
When critics discuss the use of the teachings of Jesus in the pre-Easter period, what is
typically of interest is the probability that Jesus and his disciples re-used teachings on different
occasions. See already Augustine, Cons. 2.30.77. This need not be as extreme as the view of
Riesenfeld and Gerhardsson that Jesus had his disciples memorize his teachings. See Harald
Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition: Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970); Birger
Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic
Judaism and Early Christianity (trans. Eric J. Sharpe; Lund: Gleerup, 1961). See instead e.g.
Ernest Findlay Scott, The Ethical Teaching of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1924), 24; Riesner,
Jesus als Lehrer, 359-61 (on Lehrsummarien); Robert W. Funk, The Acts of Jesus: The Search
for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1988), 2 (followers of
Jesus no doubt began to repeat his witticisms and parables during his lifetime. They soon began
to recount stories about him); Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 170-71; Jacobus
Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus (BZNW 102; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001),
e.g. 350-414 (on different performances of the parable of the sower); Gerd Theissen, Jesus as
an Itinerant Teacher: Reflections on Social History from Jesus Roles, in Charlesworth and
Pokorn, Jesus Research, 98-122 (Jesus disciples would have unintentionally committed to
memory the gist of his teachings by hearing them repeated on itinerant missions); Allison,
Constructing Jesus, 305-86 (on something of a stock sermon that interacts with Lev 19). All of
that can be affirmed, but our focus here is a different issue.

366
inferential, and the results probabilistic. Yet given the situational nature of Jesus ministry in

general, we ought to think it inherently likely that such responsive traditions exist, and probably

in greater number than synthesizers of the teaching of Jesus are wont to assume. Here I wish to

suggest that a harsh response to the Gospel, if not open challenge or rejection, stands in the

background of certain sayings of Jesus.1127 After listing the possibilities, we will offer some

reflections on the wider implications for understanding Jesus career and what, if anything, it has

to do with a Galilean crisis.

(i) Jesus is often reported to have said negative things about this generation. The

function of the phrase in the Gospels is to recast opposition to Jesus by evoking an analogous

situation in Israels story. The point defends Jesus against the charge that disapproval invalidates

him or his ministry, since Israel similarly resisted Gods chosen leaders in the past. From this

theologizing perspective, opposition to Jesus says something about the character of those doing

the opposing.

In Q the phrase appears multiple times, which explains why Q critics have found the

expression so fundamental for their stratification theories and/or reconstructions of the history of

the Q people:1128

Q 7:31: To what will I compare this generation ( ; Luke:

)?

1127
Jeremias, Proclamation of Jesus, 256, was right to note that, although the Gospels
readily create new audiences for Jesus teachings, sometimes the content shows to whom a
logion, a metaphor, a parable was originally spoken. For instance, it is as clear from the content
that the controversies were carried on with opponents as it is that the messengers instructions
were given to disciples. To be sure, Jeremias may have been a bit too cavalier in reconstructing
the original contexts of Jesus sayings, especially in his Parables of Jesus, but the general point
stands.
1128
E.g. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 193-95, 198; Markus Cromhout, Jesus and Identity:
Reconstructing Judean Ethnicity in Q (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2007), 294-97.

367
 Q 11:29: This generation is an evil generation ( .
Matt: ).

Q 11:30: As Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so the Son of Man shall be to this
generation ( )

Q 11:31-32: The queen of the South will be raised at the judgment with this generation
( . Luke: ) and condemn
itThe people of Nineveh will be raised at the judgment with this generation (
) and will condemn it.

Q 11:50-51: The blood of all the prophets that has been shed from the foundation of
the world will be required of this generation ( . Matt: all this
will come upon ).

If indeed we should think of Q as a Gospel with particular audience(s) in mind (which is a

separate issue), I see no reason to dispute the conventional wisdom of Q scholarship that it was

the confounding experience of rejection that caused the this generation motif to be

emphasized.1129 The language self-evidently adopts a biblical idiom to forge a parallel with the

generation that opposed Moses in the wilderness and was not able to enter the Promised Land

(see below). The anticipation is for judgment.

This maneuver probably goes back ultimately to Jesus. The profitable theological

function of the motif for Q should not be confused with origin. The popularity of this or other

themes is not evidence for their creation, in Q or any other text. That is a mistake Bultmann often

made.1130 Kloppenborg himself has insisted that material appearing in Q2 may well be historical,

1129
Though that interpretation is not, of course, limited to discussion of Q. Cf. Sanders,
Jesus and Judaism, 114 (the sayings against this generation probably also mirror the Jewish
rejection of the gospel); Funk, Five Gospels, 188; Stephen J. Patterson, The End of
Apocalypse: Rethinking the Eschatological Jesus, ThTo 52 (1995): 29-48 at 36.
1130
Cf. Burton Scott Easton, The Gospel before the Gospels (New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1928), 12 (in criticism of Wellhausen on the same point); Goguel, Jesus and the
Origins of Christianity, 1:166 (on the problem of taking function for creation). See also
Gregg, Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q, 7 (on judgment sayings in general).

368
since literary stratification cannot be equated with tradition history.1131 In the case of the sayings

about this generation we should probably assume that we have here something of the

perspective of Jesus, even if the sayings themselves have been shaped by later reception.1132 The

idiom is also well attested beyond Q, where it often assumes the same intertextual force:

Mark 8:12: Why does this generation ( ) seek a sign? (Matt 16:4:
, an evil and adulterous generation)

Mark 8:38 and par.: Those who are ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and
sinful generation ( ), of them the Son of
Man will also be ashamed when he comes

Mark 9:19: You faithless generation ( , Matt 17:17 and Luke 9:41 add
you faithless and perverse generation), how much longer must I put up with you?

Luke 17:25: It is necessary first for him to suffer many things and be rejected by this
generation ( ).

Matt 12:44-45: Then it (a demon) goes, and takes along with it seven other spirits more
wicked than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes
worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation (
. Luke [Q?] lacks this).

Minor differences in phraseology are actually important because they suggest that what these

sources have in common with each other and with Q is not the borrowing of a lexical formula but

a shared intertextuality. On the one hand, the phrase (note the postpositive

1131
Kloppenborg, Formation, 244-45: To say that the wisdom components were
formative for Q and that the prophetic judgment oracles and apophthegms describing Jesus'
conflict with this generation are secondary is not to imply anything about the ultimate tradition-
historical provenance of any of the sayings. It is indeed possible, indeed probable, that some of
the materials from the secondary compositional phase are dominical or at least very old, and that
some of the formative elements are, from the standpoint of authenticity of tradition-history,
relatively young. See also Excavating Q, 151.
1132
The evidence fits what Riches, Transformation of Judaism, 53, stated in anticipation
of much recent historical Jesus work: It is not simply a matter of finding individual sayings
which are beyond doubt authentic and moving out from these to those which are closest to them.
What one is looking for is a group of sayings sufficiently distinctive that, although one cannot be
sure of the authenticity of any one of them, one can say with some confidence that, taken as a
group they present characteristic features of Jesus teaching (italics orig.).

369
pronoun) translates , which appears only twice in the biblical text. The first refers to the

generation of Noah (Gen 7:1), the second to that of Moses (Deut 1:35). On the other hand,

adjectival references to the perverse, crooked, and evil -ness of this generation evoke

other texts, in particular:

Deut 32:5, 20: (Gods) degenerate children have dealt falsely with him, a perverse and
crooked generation ( ; LXX: )I will
hide my face from them, I will see what their end will be, for they are a perverse
generation () .

Num 32:13: And the Lords anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander
in the wilderness for forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight
of the Lord had disappeared.

Ps 78:8: (the next generation) should not be like their ancestors, a stubborn and
rebellious generation ( ; LXX: )
whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God.

What we have, then, are different lexical means to evoke the same intertextual subtexts:

notoriously recalcitrant generations in the past, either that of Noah and the flood or Moses and

the Exodus. That is a rather striking agreement among different sources and layers of tradition,

especially since we do not find this generation language particularly prominent in the New

Testament outside from the Gospels (cf. Phil 2:15; Acts 2:40).1133 The fact that Jesus elsewhere

appears to use Mosaic-like expressions for himself and adopt New Exodus motifs from the

Pentateuch and Second Isaiah would only further imply that we are in touch with the Jesus of

history.1134

1133
On this see Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 209 note 134.
1134
Contra Richard A. Edwards, The Eschatological Correlative as a Gattung in the
New Testament, ZNW 60 (1969): 9-20. See Dale C. Allison Jr., Qs New Exodus and the
Historical Jesus, in Lindemann, Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, 395-428 at 423-28.
Cf. Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 217 (Jesus probably did adopt this manner of speaking, which
is not very widely attested), 219 (In all probability, there is scarcely a word in the Jesus
tradition that we can more confidently regard as authentic, even to its easily reconstructed
wording).

370
 What is the significance? If we conclude that the sayings about this generation were not

created by the Q circle, but rather stem from pre-existing tradition and probably even the original

Jesus movement, may we not, by the same historical logic that produced the communal history

of the Q people, infer that Jesus himself was lead to this way of speaking not by a theological

system but rather by concrete experiences of rejection? I not only think we can, but we

should.1135 (a) Even in the Gospels the sayings have been placed in contexts where Jesus is

speaking to crowds or opponents. That is, the hortatory tendency of the Gospels could not

transform these sayings into general teaching about the state of Jesus contemporaries. They have

retained their polemical edge, and it is hard to imagine that they at one time functioned

differently. (b) In addition, it is unlikely that Jewish eschatological expectations are sufficient to

explain the state of the tradition as it stands. To be sure: one finds in Second Temple texts the

idea that lawlessness would increase as birth pangs of the Messianic age (4 Ezra 5:2; m. Sot.

9:15).1136 Jesus may even have inherited a belief in the dismal state of Israel in the time

preceding the final judgment (see 1 En. 93:9; Jub. 23:14).1137 However, those notions cannot

sufficiently explain the Jesus tradition, since what we find is not general commentary on this

1135
Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israels Traditions of Judgment and Restoration
(SNTSMS 117; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), claims the phrase is a moral
and salvation-historical designation (81). In his view, Jesus seeing Israel guilty of covenant
unfaithfulness (85) is heavily informed by traditions (87). He thinks Jesus started his ministry
with the idea that Israel had failed to be the faithful vineyard. The guests invited to the
eschatological banquet refused to come (86). I do not deny that tradition was a factor here. But I
find the phrase more readily understandable when that unfaithfulness Bryan speaks of has a
concrete referent: rejection of Jesus own person and mission. And that is only something that
could develop throughout the course of his ministry.
1136
See Allison, End of the Ages has Come, 5-25; Mark Dubis, Messianic Woes in First
Peter: Suffering and Eschatology in 1 Peter 4:12-19 (Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 2002), 130-41.
1137
Gregg, Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q, 275. I do not find that motif to be
as prominent as Gregg implies, however. He seems to take any mention of God judging the
unrighteous in Israel as evidence for his generalization.

371
generation and its depravity, but rather sayings that have opposition to and/or rejection of Jesus

in view. For instance: why is this generation worse than the Ninevites? Because the Ninevites

repented at the preaching of Jonah, whereas this generation has not. Even if Jesus entered his

ministry with some eschatological expectation about a sinful generation preceding the end, these

sayings imply it was his own rejection that triggered him to speak about it.1138

(c) We also know from rabbinic literature and other sources that the notorious depravity

of the generation of Noah (the dor of the flood) and also the dor of the wilderness, that is, of

Moses, were topics of exegetical conversation (cf. CD 2:14-21; 3:5-9; Jub. 5:3-5; 7:20-21; Tg.

Neof. Gen. 6:3; b. Nid. 61a; Gen. Rab. 30:1; Num. Rab. 19:12).1139 These discussions focus on

the nature and extent of the sins of these generations, and also their respective fates at the final

judgment.1140 As such, the function of the discussions is not to foreshadow the final generation to

come, but rather to serve as a warning about the consequences of sin. What this means is that

there existed an interpretive tradition of speaking of the dor of the wilderness and the dor of

the flood in the context of extreme sinfulness, but that tradition would not explain why Jesus

linked those generations to his own. The latter move makes sense as Jesus own attempt to link

his experiences with an exegetical tradition. (d) Finally, we need to remember that Jewish texts

from the Second Temple period that negatively describe future generations are helpful for us not

1138
As a parallel I would point here to the Damascus Document at Qumran, which says
that (God) raised up for them a teacher of righteousness, in order to guide them in the path of
his heart. And he made known to the last generations what he had done for the last generation,
the congregation of traitors. These are the ones who stray from the path (CD 1:11-13). There
may be some preexisting eschatological ideas at play here, but this dor is termed traitorous
precisely because of the rejection of the teacher (see also 1QSb 3:7).
See Evald Lvestam, Jesus and this Generation: A New Testament Study (CB 25;
1139

Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995), 8-20.

1140
Cf. m. Sanh. 10:3.

372
just insofar as they help reconstruct an eschatological thought system. These texts have their own

Sitz im Leben, and often the writers projections about the future, and future sin in particular, are

responses to concrete realities in their own time. So there is a parallel here.

Should these insights be near the truth, the sayings about this generation would have

functioned for not just Q or later Christian communities, but for Jesus too, as attempts to

theologize opposition.1141 Moreover, it is not apparent that the referent necessarily be the

religious leaders who opposed Jesus, even though the Gospels often make it appear so (Mark

8:12; Matt 12:39-42; 16:4). The description and its intertextual subtext are better suited to

characterize the crowds of people who heard Jesus and responded to him favorably or

unfavorably (as the Gospels also indicate, see Mark 8:38; 9:19; Matt 11:16 [?]; Luke 11:29-

32).1142 It is likely that the Gospels have focused attention on Jesus learned opponents, as is their

wont, whereas for Jesus the expression may have had a wider purview. Of course, none of this

means we have uncovered the Galilean storms, nor that Jesus changed his mind on some

important matter. In speaking about this generation and pronouncing judgment Jesus sounds,

again, like John the Baptist. But there is no reason to think that Jesus would adopt this idiom if it

were not confirmed in some way in his own experience. It is, in content, form, and use,

responsive.

(ii) Another important consideration is the presentation of Jesus as a rejected prophet.

This is not a tradition that the Gospels have preserved with enthusiasm. In a number of sayings

1141
For continuity here (and not just discontinuity), see Uro, Sheep among the Wolves,
162-68; Kosch, Q und Jesus, 37.
1142
Though this is not to say that this generation means Israel or all of Jesus Jewish
contemporaries but, rather, as Tuckett, Q and the History, 201, has written, a non-representative
part of the Jewish people. See also Simon J. Joseph, Jesus, Q, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A
Judaic Approach to Q (WUNT 333; Tbingen: Mohr, 2012), 41-42, 92 (though I disagree that it
is just scribes, Pharisees, and Temple elite in minda strange universalizing of its own kind).

373
that mention rejection and prophets together, the prophetic class is made subordinate to Jesus. In

Q 6:22-23, Jesus says, Blessed are you when (people) revile you and persecute and say all

manner of evil against you on account of the son of man. Rejoice and be glad, because great is

your reward in heaven, for thusly they persecuted the prophets before you. Here it is the

rejection of later followers of Jesus that is compared to the prophets, while Jesus is set apart as

the son of man on whose account the persecution comes. In Q 11:49-51, Jesus reveals the intent

of the Wisdom of God to send prophets and wise men (Luke: apostles) which will be

persecuted and killed. For Q, as well as Luke and Matthew, the death of Jesus is clearly in mind

here, though the accent remains on the experiences of Jesus followers. In Matthews version,

Jesus speaks not as a prophet among prophets, but rather assumes the voice of Wisdom herself

(Matt 23:34: Therefore I send you prophets.). In Q 13:34-35, where Jesus weeps over

Jerusalem, it is evident that the statement you kill the prophets that are sent to you is meant

include Jesus. But Jesus speaks not merely as a prophet among other prophets, but rather as

Gods Shekinahone so significant that his rejection results in the abandonment of Gods

presence from the holy house. It is clear, in all, that the later Church has clearly used the rejected

prophet motif to explain the death of Jesus as well as to predict, ex eventu, its own struggles in

later times. I find all of these sayings suspicious and probably secondary.1143

1143
For exegetical studies see Michael Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthews Gospel: The
Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthean Redaction (JSNTSSup 68; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993); C.
Comblet Galland, De Jsus prophte au souffl prophtique de lvangile: Limpact dune
figure, in Lintrigue dans le rcit biblique: quatrieme colloque international du RRENAB (eds.
Anne Pasquier, Daniel Marquerat, and Andr Wnin; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 141-56; Jocelyn
McWhirter, Rejected Prophets: Jesus and His Witnesses in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2013).

374
 Yet two further things are clear. The first is that we know Jesus was considered a prophet

by some of his contemporaries during his lifetime.1144 Speculations to this effect have been

preserved in the Gospels (e.g. Mark 6:15; 8:28; Matt 21:11). On account of Josephus description

of Theudas, the Egyptian, and others, we know that prophet was a live category in the first

century. Jesus also engaged in prophetic-sign acts,1145 probably modeled the actions of famous

prophets like Elijah and Elisha,1146 spoke of the future,1147 and resembled John the Baptist, whom

he himself called a prophet (Q 7:26; Mark 9:11-13). So the connection is natural.

The second is other sayings of Jesus assume the typology of a rejected prophet. A

tradition unique to Luke reports the following:

Some Pharisees came and said to him, Get away from here because Herod wants to kill
you. He said to them, Go and tell that fox, listen, I cast out demons and I perform cures
today and tomorrow and on the third day I reach my goal. And it is necessary for me to
continue today and tomorrow and in the coming day, because it is not possible for a
prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem. (Luke 13:31-33).

1144
On Jesus as prophet see Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 1043-47; Morna D.
Hooker, The Signs of a Prophet: The Prophetic Actions of Jesus (Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International, 1997); Scot McKnight, Jesus and Prophetic Action, BBR 10 (2000): 197-232;
Craig A. Evans, Prophet, Sage, Healer, Messiah, and Martyr: Types and Identities of Jesus, in
Holmn and Porter, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2:1217-44 at 1219-22; Bond,
Historical Jesus, 94-95.
1145
See Hooker, Signs of a Prophet.
1146
Cf. e.g. John A. T. Robinson, Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection, NTS 4
(1957): 263-81; Marcus, John the Baptist and Jesus, 179-97; J. Severino Croatto, Jesus,
Prophet like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher like Moses in Luke-Acts, JBL 124 (2005): 451-65;
Craig S. Keener, Jesus and Parallel Jewish and Greco-Roman Figures, in Christian Origins
and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (eds. Stanley E.
Porter and Andrew W. Pitts; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013), 85-112 at 97-98.
1147
On the importance of foretelling for the understanding of a prophet, see Gerhard
Delling, Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus, in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu
Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag
gewidmet (ed. Otto Betz et al.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 109-21; L. Stephen
Cook, On the Question of the Cessation of Prophecy in Ancient Judaism (WUNT 145;
Tbingen: Mohr, 2011), 123.

375
It is not possible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem. It is not clear what interpretive

tradition this saying assumes, but it is clear that Jesus here associates his end with the violent fate

of the prophets in the past. The situation in which Luke places this saying intrigues, since it

comes at the end of Jesus Galilean ministry and en route to Jerusalem. That would make

excellent sense.1148 I already discussed above that Herod likely became aware of Jesus

reputation at some later point, and if he made a connection between Jesus and the Baptist, then it

is understandable that he would have it out for Jesus. As it is, however, there is too much Lucan

terminology and theology in this pericope to say anything definitive about it for the historical

Jesus. It evokes the resurrection and participates in Lukes theme. I am not sure what to make

of it.

In any case, if only on account of the Nazareth episode, we should conclude that the

impression left by Luke 13 started with Jesus. The prophet saying at Nazareth (a prophet is not

without honor except in his hometown) almost certainly goes back to Jesus. The function of the

saying is to decrease the scandal of rejection among his peers by reframing it as an experience

common to prophets. The old-fashioned criteria of authenticity do not mislead here.1149 The

saying is multiply attested, even appearing in the Gospel of John in a variant form.1150 It employs

a very humble description of Jesus. It is placed by the Synoptics in a particular situation that the

1148
See here Bilde, Originality of Jesus, 155.
1149
Contra William John Lyons, A Prophet is Rejected in His Hometown (Mark 6.4 and
Parallels), JSHJ 6 (2008): 59-84, which shows only that one can find reasons to be skeptical of
anything.
1150
John 4:44, in fact, is the only saying in the Gospel of John that the Jesus Seminar
considered authentic. See Robert W. Funk and Roy W. Hoover, The Five Gospels: The Search
for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 412. It may be that John
understood Jesus to be Jerusalem, rather than Nazareth. Cf. J. Willemse, La Patrie de
Jsus selon Saint Jean, NTS 11 (1965): 349-64. This, however, is not clear. See Gilbert van
Belle, The Faith of the Galileans: The Parenthesis in Jn 4:44, ETL 74 (1998): 27-44.

376
later Church would never have created if it had the choice. We should also think that the rejected

prophet category was otherwise known to Jesus. He evidently called John a prophetactually

more than a prophet (Q 7:26)and probably also labeled him Elijah redivivus (cf. Q 7:27;

Matt 11:14; Mark 9:13). That is striking because John was arrested and executed. Thus, for

Jesus, the rejection (and, at some point, execution) of John did not usurp his prophetic

credentials. He remained a prophet, even the greatest of those born of women (Q 7:28).

So how do we arrive at this impression of Jesus as a rejected prophet historically? It is

possible that Jesus began his ministry by talking about himself as a rejected prophet, since he

followed the Baptist and surely anticipated some opposition of his own. However, anticipating

opposition is not the same thing as assuming the type of a rejected prophet, just as expecting the

final judgment to come soon is not the same as pronouncing judgment on certain

individuals/groups for failure to repent.1151 Moreover, as much as Jesus tried to link his ministry

with Johns, Jesus was not John. As already argued, Jesus did not simply absorb the crowds that

attended Johns call to baptism. Jesus rather started his own ministry in the Galilee and had to

grow his own reputation. In this respect, Q 7:31-25 is surely correct, dominical or not, in its

estimation that John did one thing (eating no bread and drinking no wine), Jesus another (the

Son of Man has come eating and drinking), and that both were rejected in turn. It is true that

there existed by the first century an interpretive tradition of the biblical prophets that emphasized

if not exaggerated their rejection and sufferings at the hands of their contemporaries. This is well

attested in the Lives of the Prophets and other writings.1152 But as with the eschatological

1151
See here Polag, Christologie der Logienquelle, 121-22.
1152
The seminal study here is still Odil H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der
Propheten (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967). See also Schrmann, Wie
hat Jesus seinen Tod bestanden und verstanden?, 333; Chilton, Galilean Rabbi, 136; Tilly,
Johannes der Tufer und die Biographie der Propheten, 236-47; David L. Turner, Israels Last
377
background of the sayings about this generation, interpretive background cannot in itself

explain the presence of this typology in the ministry of Jesus. It would make the type available

for Jesus, and for his followers as well, but it would not explain its activation.

The Nazareth episode, as an important snapshot of Jesus Galilean ministry, provides the

clearest explanation for why he would take on the form of a rejected prophet. It was to make

sense of a concrete experience of rejection.1153 Mark 6:1-6, just as much as the Galilean woes,

has a ring of disappointment to it, and how could it not? Are we to expect that Jesus went to

Nazareth expecting full well to be rebuffed (though Luke has made it so)?1154 We may well

imagine that, as with his work in Capernaum, Jesus went to Nazareth with the sincere hope that

his message would be welcomed and that people would repent and believe in the Gospel. As

such, Jesus rejected prophet persona, of which we only have fragmentary reminiscence in the

Gospels, attests to developments that occurred after Jesus ministry was in full swing. As Cadoux

once helpfully observed, other cases of rejected prophets in Israels collective memory talked

about their rejection being pre-determined after that rejection had already occurred.1155

Prophet: Jesus and the Jewish Leaders in Matthew 23 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 13-
54.
1153
Cf. Franz Schnider, Jesus, der Prophet (Freiburg: Universittsverlag; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 139-42.
1154
For affirmative answers, see Aquinass Catena on Mark 6:1-6 (trans. Newman,
2:105-06).
1155
Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 188. Also relevant here is Sura 3:52: When Jesus
became aware that they [still] did not believe, he said, Who will help me in Gods cause? The
disciples said, We will be Gods helpers; we believe in Godwitness our devotion to Him.
Lord, we believe in what You have revealed and we follow the messenger: record us among
those who bear witness [to the Truth]. The [disbelievers] schemed but God also schemed; God
is the Best of Schemers. Why emphasize the rejection of Jesus, and the devotion of a small band
of disciples? Because it mirrored Muhammads own experience. The typology befitted his
circumstances.

378
 (iii) The rejected prophet motif implies that Jesus opponents do not actually perceive the

truth of what is being said. There are, in turn, multiple ways to explain that failure of perception.

As evident above, it was popular in the later Church to assert that that lack of understanding was

not due to anything inherent in the Christian message, but is rather due to the inability of those

opposed to grasp it.1156

According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus said to his disciples and associates (

):

to you () has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to those on the
outside ( ) all things come in parables, in order that () while
seeing they may see and not perceive, and while hearing they may hear and not
understand, lest () they turn and it be forgiven them. (Mark 4:11-12)

Mark has left many of his fingerprints on this saying and the corresponding allusion to Isaiah

6:10-12, as exegetes have known for a long time. Jan Lambrecht and many others have

contended that Mark inserted vv. 10-12 into his source material.1157 This must be right. After this

aside to the disciples in private (v. 10), Mark has forgotten to reintroduce the crowds which are

the presupposed audience for the rest of the parable chapter (cf. vv. 33-34). The insertion also

functions to advance Marks special interest in spiritual sight which surfaces throughout the

remainder of the Gospel. The striking result is that, despite many attempts to explain it

1156
A view which, of course, is common in the history of religion, and especially in
apocalyptic movements. Note 1QS 3:13-24 (Treatise of the Two Spirits) indicates that God
enables one to hear and see. Cf. Joel Marcus, Mark 4:10-12 and Markan Epistemology, JBL
102 (1984): 557-74 at 559, 561. See also 1QHa 21:4-5, 19-21; 22:6-7; CD 2:13; 1 En. 41:8. Cf.
Michael Stone, Lists of Revealed Things in Apocalyptic Literature, in Magnalia Dei, the
Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (ed.
Frank M. Cross et al.; New York: Doubleday, 1976), 414-52; Shane Berg, Religious
Epistemology and the History of the Dead Sea Scrolls Community, in Harlow et al., The
Other in Second Temple Judaism, 333-49.
1157
Jan Lambrecht, Redaction and Theology in Mk, IV, in Lvangile selon Marc:
Tradition et Redaction (ed. M. Sabbe; 2nd ed.; BETL 24; Leuven: Leuven University Press,
1988), 269-308.

379
otherwise,1158 Marks Jesus teaches in parables so that people do not understand and lest they

turn and be forgiven.1159 Thus the parables, for Mark, intentionally deceive those on the

outside (even if the Evangelist has not consistently applied the idea). Why would Mark use Isa

6 in this manner? Joel Marcus argued in his commentary:

As with the other quotations of Isa 6:9-10 in the New Testament, it stems from a desire
on the part of early Christians to trace back to Gods will the perplexing rejection of the
gospel by the Jewish people as a whole. That rejection induced a deeply disturbing case
of cognitive dissonance among Christians such as the members of the Markan
community: Israel had been expected to welcome her Messiah with open arms, yet Jesus
was the Messiah and Israel had rejected himThe sharp dualism of Mark 4:11-
12probably reflects the Markan communitys bitter experiences of powerlessness,
marginalization, and persecution even to the point of death.1160
It should be obvious at this point that if one substituted Jesus for early Christians/Markan

community, this quotation would fit seamlessly into 19th-century Lives of Jesus or any other

work that has proposed a Galilean crisis in the ministry.

As it is, however, it remains the majority opinion in current scholarship that Isa 6 was

used to rationalize later failures, and was not adopted by Jesus himself.1161 There have been

1158
See e.g. Origen, Princ. 3.1 (where Origen responds to precisely this view).
1159
So Marcus, Mark 1-8, 300; Collins, Mark, 249; C. Clifton Black, Mark (ANTC;
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2011), 121. Contra Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Marks
World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 160-61; Klyne
Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008), 163.
1160
Marcus, Mark 1-8, 306-07. On the use of Isa 6 elsewhere in the NT to explain
rejection, see Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 1-8:26) (EKKNT; Kln:
Benzinger, 1978), 163.
1161
Cf. e.g. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 325 note 1 (In my view Mk.
410-12 is an editorial formulation of Mark); Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, 13-14; Gunter
Haufe, Erwgungen zum Ursprung der sogenannten Parabeltheorie Markus 4, 11-12, EvT 32
(1972): 413-21; Eduard Schweizer, The Question of the Messianic Secret in Mark, in The
Messianic Secret (ed. Christopher Tuckett; IRT 1; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 65-74 at
69; Maarten J. J. Menken, Fulfillment of Scripture as a Propaganda Tool in Early Christianity,
380
counter arguments,1162 to be sure, though most recent works on Jesus have simply not raised the

question, and by their neglect imply that it is not that important for understanding Jesus public

career.

I dissent from the majority view on Isa 6, though not with total confidence. It is at least

clear that Marks use of Isa 6:9-10 is not his own creation, but rather relies on tradition, and very

ancient tradition at that. Marks citation of Isa 6 agrees in part with the Septuagint, but also

contains striking agreements with the Aramaic Targum, including the shift from second person to

the third person (e.g. Marks , , etc.), as well as the reference to being

forgiven ( , Tg.: ) rather than healed (MT: ). This probably

indicates that the form of Isa 6:9-10 available to Mark was used before him by Aramaic speaking

Christians, and thus near the beginning of the Christian movement. That would also explain why

the verses appear in John 12:40, on the assumption that John is independent of the Synoptics.1163

It is also worth observing that Marks redactional tendency to have the disciples ask

questions of Jesus in private (as in 4:10) functions elsewhere as a means for Mark to present

traditional material, even though this setting is clearly his own device. For instance:

in Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism (ed. Pieter
W. van der Horst et al.; Leuven: Peters, 2003), 179-98 at 181.
1162
Manson, Teaching of Jesus, 75-80; Chilton, Galilean Rabbi, 97-98; Beasley-Murray,
Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 106-07; Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 103-06 (though the
focus of his book is the NT texts); Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 358 (could, and only
to move hardened hearers to repentance); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 494 ([Isa 6] certainly
reflects the subsequent puzzlement at the failure of the disciples post-Easter mission to their
fellow Jews. But that fact should not be allowed to exclude the possibility that Jesus himself was
remembered as echoing Isaiahs own depressing commission when he spoke of his own).
1163
Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 327, also heard a shared tradition
with Mark 4:12 in John 9:39 ( ,
), which interestingly also has .

381
 7:17: entered the house 7:20: it is what comes out of a person that defiles
(cf. Matt 23:25-26)

10:10: in the house 10:11-12: whoever divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery

13:3: on the Mount 13:4-37: predictions of the temples destruction, the

coming of the Son of Man1164

Isaiah 6 in Mark 4 would be akin to this situation, in which Marks redactional device introduces

ancient material. It is a good hypothesis, then, that the Evangelist has inserted into his parable

chapter a traditional saying of Jesus to advance his own unique view of the parables. It is

improbable that in Marks tradition Isa 6 was used in the context of the parables,1165 and it

probably referred to Jesus actions and deeds more broadly, as John 12 assumes.1166

Unfortunately we cannot go much further than this. Moreover, if indeed Jesus used Isa 6,

we would have no way to know the exact form of the citation that he adopted. Versions of Isa

6:9-10 vary significantly, and even within the New Testament there are key variations that reflect

differences in interpretation. For Matthew and Luke, who follow Mark, the citation has been

significantly softened, such that the parables are given no longer to deceive, but rather have that

1164
Mark 13 clearly reflects on later events in the post-Easter period, as biblical scholars
have long noted: the coming of false prophets and messiahs (vv. 5-6, 21-22), famines and
earthquakes (v. 8), persecutions (v. 9-13), and some desolating sacrilege in the temple (v. 14).
But the discourse is surely constructed around memories of things Jesus had said about the end.
For differing views see Franz Mussner, Was lehrt Jesus ber das Ende der Welt? (Freiburg:
Herder, 1987); Robert H. Stein, Jesus, the Temple and the Coming Son of Man: A Commentary
on Mark 13 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014).
1165
Contra Frank Eakin, Spiritual Obduracy and Parable Purpose, in The Use of the Old
Testament in the New and Other Essays (ed. James M. Efird; Durham: Duke University Press,
1972), 87-107; H. Yoshimura, Did Jesus Cite Isa. 6:9-10? Jesus Saying in Mark 4:11-12 and
the Islamic Idea of Hardening and Remnant (bo: bo Akademi University Press, 2010).
1166
So Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1952),
257-58; Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 15-17; Joachim Gnilka, Die Verstockung Israels: Isaias
6,9-10 in der Theologie der Synoptiker (Munich: Ksel, 1961), 26-27, 198-205.

382
effect among those who have, of their own volition, already rejected Jesus.1167 Matthew also

achieves this meaning by moving the parable chapter much later in his narrative (13:14-15), such

that Isa 6 is a response to the rejection of the Gospel in Chapters 11-12. Lukes withholding of

Isa 6 until the end of Acts (28:26-27) takes a similar view. It may be that this softening actually

returns to the original form of the tradition that Mark used, since the Third Evangelist had

intensified it for his own theological reasons.1168 We cannot know.

Yet it is necessary at this point to take a wider perspective on the issue. Authentic or not,

and in this particular form or that, Isa 6 adopts the motifs of blindness and deafness to explain

why Gods message is not received by certain people. That is true whether that blindness and

deafness result from divine or human agency, or some mixture of both. It is important to observe,

therefore, that similar blindness, deafness, and hiddenness motifs run throughout the Gospels, in

multiples sources and in all layers of tradition.1169

(a) In Q 10:21, Jesus exclaims, I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because

you hid () these things from the wise () and the learned and revealed

() them to infants. Yes, Father, that is pleasing before you.1170 There may be an

allusion here to Isa 29:14 (The wisdom of the wise [LXX: ] will perish, the discernment

of the discerning [LXX: ] shall be hidden [LXX: I will hide, ]), which would

1167
Luke omits lest they turn and it be forgiven them, so there is no hardening
indicated here.
1168
For discussion see Robert H. Stein, Introduction to the Parables of Jesus
(Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1981), 27-35.
1169
For some context here, see Andr Gagn Sectarianism, Secret Teaching, and Self-
DefinitionRelational Features between Jesus, the Disciples, and the Outsiders, in Jesus in
Continuum (ed. TomHolmn; WUNT 289; Tbingen: Mohr, 2012), 223-42.
1170
Cf. Luz, Matthew 8-20, 157-58, 161-64.

383
be striking indeed because Isa 29:13 (this people honors me with their lips) appears in Mark

7:6-7 (par. Matt 15:8-9) in the context of a debate with the Pharisees over handwashing.1171 This

would only make plain what one would probably assume imply anyway, that the learned/

wise refer to particular opponents of Jesus who had some advanced knowledge of the Torah,

while the infants refer to Jesus own following. He appeals to God to explain why the

wise/learned do not get it. (b) In corroboration of this point, Jesus is elsewhere said to have

called people, particularly religious leaders, blind (Luke 6:39; Matt 15:14; 23:16, 17, etc.; John

9:39-41). (c) In an M tradition, Jesus says to opponents, You know how to interpret the

appearance of the sky, but you are unable ( ) to interpret the signs of the times (Matt

16:3). The meaning is the same.

(d) On the flipside, the Gospels report that Jesus sometimes said, he who has ears to hear

let him hear ( , cf. Mark 4:9, 23; Matt 11:15; 13:43; Luke 14:35;

etc.), which means that only some are able to truly hear his message. (e) The ability to see

and hear is necessary for Johns emissaries to know if Jesus is, truly, the coming one (Q

7:22).

(f) Given these traditions which focus so much on sight language and other faculties of

perception, it is likely that the saying the eye is the lamp of the body (Q 11:34) has some

bearing here as well. It goes on: if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be radiant

(), but if your eye is evil, your whole body will be dark (). This statement

1171
The form of this allusion resembles the Septuagint, but that fact itself in no way
justifies Meiers sweeping conclusion in Law and Love, 400. Cf. Thomas R. Hatina, Did Jesus
Quote Isaiah 29:13 against the Pharisees? An Unpopular Appraisal, BBR 16 (2006): 79-94.

384
presupposes a pre-modern theory of vision,1172 but the point is not medical. The point is that

ones ability to perceive depends on the light within.

That is a lot of material. Chances are high that even if the use of Isa 6 is secondary after

all, that passage was ascribed to Jesus by his followers because it was well known that he had

advanced similar notions about his message. Everything listed above makes good sense in the

context of a first century, inner-Jewish disputation. Efforts to pin the whole on the later Church

only serve to shield Jesus from the unfashionable views of his followers.

It would be possible to argue that such traditions were not responsive but rather capture

what Jesus had intended to do all along. That is the perspective of N. T. Wright, who wrote that

Jesus used Isa 6:9-10

by way of telling the story of Israel as the story of rejected prophets, consequent
judgment, and renewal the other side of judgment, and by way of describing Jesus own
ministry as the culmination, and hence encapsulation or recapitulation, of that prophetic
heritage. For Jesus, Isaiah was both an earlier part of the story, one of his predecessors in
the long line, one (moreover) whose own commission contained a most striking statement
of the inevitable rejection of his messageand one whose ministry, and its results, were
being climatically recapitulated in his own work.1173

For Wright, then, Isa 6 functions predictively: The son would come to the vineyard, and the

tenants would reject him. They would look and look, but never see.1174 I do not doubt that Jesus,

having started with John, thought it inevitable (Wrights term) that some would reject his

message. He may even have believed some blind from the beginning. But I doubt that

1172
See Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, 135-43.
1173
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 236-37 (italics orig.).
1174
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 237. See also Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 216;
Bryan, Traditions of Judgment and Restoration, 124-28 (Jesus message about the mystery of
the kingdom abets his proclamation of Israels impending judgment, for it serves as the
beginning of judgment by acting as a catalyst which promotes the nations obduracy); Donald
E. Hartley, The Wisdom Background and Parabolic Implications of Isaiah 6:9-10 in the
Synoptics (Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 2006).

385
everything transpired as Jesus had planned when it came to the rejection of his message. The

history of religion is full of examples of leaders and groups offering similar explanatory

measures to make sense of disappointing circumstances, even if they expected, at the outset,

doors slammed in their faces. Wrights view strikes me as similar, though perhaps not as

extreme, as that of Fuchs, who explained the severity of (Jesus) demand as well as his threats

and calls of woe on the basis of Jesus desire and expectation that suffering would be the

necessary prelude to new life.1175

I would make three further points here. First, according to Wright, Jesus was rejected by

those who really could not comprehend or accept the good thing he was about.1176 I do not wish

to deny that Jesus message was startling, convicting, and full of surprises. But I doubt that Jesus

was rejected because his message was radically innovative, or because it was so beyond his

audience.1177 Jesus call of the twelve, his exorcisms and healings, and his teaching about Gods

coming rule were all children of Jewish restoration eschatology. So too, Jesus ethical demands

were uncompromising in their rigor, but they were not incomprehensible. Several of Jesus

parables told profound stories about Gods mercy and love for the forsaken, but they did not, as

Mark believed, intend to deceive. They were messages to be heard and acted on, to go and do

1175
Ernst Fuchs, Studies of the Historical Jesus (SBT 42; Naperville: Allenson, 1964),
61.
1176
See also here James D. G. Dunn, The Messianic Secret in Mark, in Tuckett,
Messianic Secret, 116-131 at 119: it is more plausible to recognize in the motif (of the
messianic secret) a historical reminiscence of the very natural and unexceptional slowness of
unlettered men whose rigid and closed system of thought made it difficult for them to adjust to
new teaching (see also at 128).
1177
The motif of misunderstanding has an interesting history of interpretation in its
own right. Christian exegetes and historians throughout the centuries have routinely explained
the rejection of Jesus by stating that his contemporaries (and often his disciples) misunderstood
his true intentions. The maneuver functioned to set Jesus apart from his context as unique and
original; in the modern period: a religious genius too advanced for his time.

386
likewise (Luke 10:37). Mussner was at least right in this: Jesus public ministry issued an

offer for his contemporaries that was genuine and not simply a means of dividing the righteous

from the wicked. Recourse to blindness, deafness, and hiddenness motifs, then, make the most

sense as defensive mechanisms to explain the rejection of that activity by certain people, not as

an underlying objective of his work.

A second point supports this. The earliest Christians believed that the outpouring of the

Holy Spirit fulfilled the expectations of the prophets and signaled the inauguration of the end of

days. But this view goes back to the pre-Easter period, since Jesus himself probably claimed to

have been anointed by the Spirit of God (perhaps at his baptism by John?),1178 and pointed to

Gods spirit as the active agent in his exorcisms.1179 This claim, however, has implications for

the reception of his message. In prophetic expectation, as well as in wider Jewish tradition, the

Spirit was conjoined with the increase in wisdom, knowledge, and obedience in Israel. In Ezek

36, the outpouring of the Spirit of God produces the ensuing obedience of Israel (v. 38).1180 The

Spirit of the Lord that rests on the figure mentioned in Isa 11 is given understanding and counsel,

and the prophet expects that the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters

cover the sea (v. 9). In Pss. Sol. 17, Davids heir will discipline Israel by the power of Gods

Spirit, to direct people in righteous acts (18:5), and in Philos non-eschatological discussion of

Abraham, the divine Spirit, which, having been breathed upon him from on high, made its

lodging in his soul, invested his body with a singular beauty, his words with persuasiveness, and

1178
Jeremias, Proclamation of Jesus, 52-56; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 376; Keener,
Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 393.
1179
Cf. Graham Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the
Historical Jesus (WUNT 54; Tbingen: Mohr, 1993).
1180
See here Deut. Rab. 6:14; Tg. Ezek. 36:25-26; b. Ber. 31b-32a.

387
his hearers with understanding.1181 The Acts of the Apostles, then, presents matters as they

should be: Peters hearers are cut to the heart and ask what should we do? (Acts 2:37). If

Jesus thought himself a Spirit-endowed agent of God, if not more, the Messiah of Israel, then it

would only force the question of rejection more strongly, just as it did for the early Church. We

see a particularly harsh reaction in Jesus claim that those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit

active in his ministry will not find forgiveness (Mark 3:29 and par.). That is because such

criticism should not happen; the blasphemer must be utterly lost.

Third, Jesus did not initiate his ministry with a sectarian identity. John the Baptist had

harsh things to say about those who confided in their status as children of Abraham (Q 3:8), and

Jesus does not seem to have backed down from that position. But neither John, nor Jesus,

established a sectarian form of Judaism with carefully constructed boundaries between those in

and out. As many other critics have divined, Jesus addressed all Israel,1182 and the call of the

Twelve was surely a point about Israels restoration. This is relevant because, for Jesus,

categories such as the wise and the infants or the referents behind blessed are you who see

came into being as people responded either positively or negatively to his call.1183 Even though

1181
Philo, Virt. 217 (italics mine). Not unrelated is Philos claims that the spirit of God
ascends the philosophers mind, so Plant. 18-26. Cf. also Somn. 2.252, Spec. Leg. 3.1-6, Cher.
27-29; Fug. 53-58.
1182
Cf. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and the Kingdom: The Restoration of Israel and the New
People of God, in Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of William R. Farmer
(ed. E. P Sanders; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987), 225-242; Becker, Jesus of Nazareth,
314; McKnight, A New Vision for Israel, 9-14.
1183
See Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, 476-78 (who even mentions a galilischen Krise
here). Diversity of response to Jesus was the way that Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 119-21, understood
Jesus and John the Baptist to have formed an eschatological remnant in Israel. E.g., at 121:
Remnant, therefore, was not defined by the limitation of Johns mission to a given group. It
was defined by the diversity of response (i.e., acceptance and rejection). See also Jeremias,
Proclamation of Jesus, 173 (on an open remnant); Bilde, Originality of Jesus, 134-37.

388
he had harsh things to say about Pharisees, he probably did not consider them blind en masse.

This means that, given Jesus address to all,1184 the distinction between those who see and those

who do not could only come about as a result of his work.

The upshot of the preceding is that, like the sayings about this generation and the

rejected prophet typology, the motifs of blindness, deafness, and hiddenness in the Jesus tradition

are hard to place if we fail to view them as accommodations to realities that arose during the

ministry. What I have hopefully contributed here are some new angles on an old issue, such that

we conclude that the kind of wrestling with rejection that we find in the later Church began with

Jesus own response to the same, albeit in a different setting. We know that the later Church had

to wrestle with the issues that surface most clearly in Rom 9-11: the rejection of the Gospel.

It is likely that the later Church read into the Jesus story its own experiences of rejection.

I intentionally neglected to discuss a number of Jesus parables that for crisis proponents and

many others have re-narrated the story of Jesus rejection by Israel (esp. the Parable of the

Wedding Banquet,1185 and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants).1186 Not only is the interpretation

of the parables notoriously difficult,1187 I suspect that these parables have been significantly

reshaped by the later community, and we can no longer say anything meaningful about what they

1184
Joachim Jeremias, Der Gedanke des heiligen Restes im Sptjudentum und in der
Verkungibung Jesu, ZNW 42 (1949): 184-94.
1185
Here esp. see Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 250-54.
1186
Cf. Karl E. Pagenkemper, Rejection Imagery in the Synoptic Parables, BSac 153
(1996): 308-31. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 21, famously read the parables as stemming from
situations of conflict and being used as weapons of controversy.
1187
See here Renate Banschbach Eggen, Do the Parables Tell us something about the
Mission of Jesus?, in Byrskog and Hgerland, Mission of Jesus, 141-60 at 158: an interpreters
own decisions (on the original setting of the parable) may have too great an influence on the
outcome of an interpretation in order to consider the parables as a reliable source in a quest for
the historical Jesus. See also Meier, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables, 5-6, 31-33.

389
meant for Jesus,1188 if they go back to him at all. Nevertheless, if we step back and look at some

wider trends that appear in numerous sources and forms of tradition, we have good reason to

think that Jesus and his later followers held in common certain attempts to theologize rejection.

We do not face an either/or decision here.

A few broader conclusions to this discussion of theologizing rejection are fitting at this

point. What have not identified a change of mind on Jesus part, but the evidence does point

toward development in the ministry that is not entirely unlike what proponents of a Galilean

crisis have put forth. The most recent of these proposals is found in the publications of Eckhard

Rau, which have focused on the importance of Jesus sayings about this generation. For

reasons already explored, I believe that Rau has gone too far in reconstructing a break (in his

words: eine sachlich belangvolle Zsur)1189 in the ministry along the lines of 19th-century Jesus

research, even though his method is much more sophisticated than earlier proposals along similar

lines. I am not sure that we can infer from this generation a wider failure among Israel as a

whole,1190 and the same would go for the rejected prophet and perception motifs. In the Gospels,

impressions of fame and failure sit side by side, as do Jesus eschatological admonitions and

1188
On the question of the original settings of the parables in the ministry of Jesus, see
Mary Ann Tolbert, Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach to Multiple Interpretations
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 40-50; Charles E. Carlston, Proverbs, Maxims, and the
Historical Jesus, JBL 99 (1980): 87-105; Birger Gerhardsson, If We do not Cut the Parables
out of their Frames, NTS 37 (1991): 321-35.
1189
Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 21.
1190
Contra Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 247: Wenn Chorazin,
Bethsaida und Kapernaum tatschlich pars pro toto fr Galila stehen, signalisiert der Verweis
auf dieses Geschlecht, dass die Ablehnung eine sehr viel umfassendere Gre betrifft, als durch
die Beschrnkung der Notmenklatur auf Galila und seine Orte ausgedrckt werden knnte).
Contra also Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 215 (this generation = the whole nation of his
contemporaries, all of Israel, as a unified opponent). Cf. Jeremias, Proclamation of Jesus, 135.

390
ethical teachings.1191 As it is unwise to try to disentangle and periodize the latter, so too, I would

submit, the former. The most we can divine is that these rationalizing measures appeared after

Jesus ministry was in full swing, as his lines of support and opposition had taken some

recognizable shape. They are the product of varied experience.

In making this qualification, however, I do not wish to deny something more important

that Rau had his finger on, and that is the implied backstory of rejection that the sayings about

this generation and other traditions naturally bring to mind. If there be but one significant

legacy of the crisis theory that is worth salvaging, it is, in my view, the way that it encourages us

to think realistically and concretely about the rejection of Jesus message.

7.5. CONCLUSION

This chapter has made some claims about Jesus popularity and considered indications that he

found rejection in the Galilee. To summarize the conclusions:

(i) there are reasons to think that the notion of a Galilean Spring is not entirely
misleading as a description of Jesus early ministry. On the one hand, we can see that it
was necessary for Jesus to grow his own following after parting ways with John;
(ii) on the other hand, there are numerous memories, in all layers of the tradition, of
Jesus successful activities in and around Capernaum. He must have been well received
there, at least for a time;
(iii) opposition to Jesus from certain religious leaders appears to have developed in
response to his earlier successes. There must be some reason that Jesus was worth paying
attention to and taking the effort to oppose (see the Appendix for the full case);
(iv) the so-called Galilean woes reflect on a situation of rejection among cities that Jesus
had committed much time and effort, and they seem to express disappointment about that
fact. This presupposes some development in the reception of the Jesus movement in these
areas, and thus require a later setting in the ministry;

1191
On present and future eschatology see Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 92.

391
 (v) the tradition is rife with attempts to theologize rejection. The early Church is no
doubt responsible for some of this, but it is likely that Jesus adopted similar explanatory
strategies. These include labeling critics (this generation), self-description (as a rejected
prophet), and claims about the epistemology of his opponents (blindness and ignorance).
The argument of this chapter confirms, on the whole, that the old Lives of Jesus were onto

something in spying important developments in the ministry of Jesus from early success to

growing opposition. That result does not require us to periodize his public career, however.

The case of the Baptist is, as always, instructive. In one saying Jesus claims that both he and

John were rejected by this generation. Some had apparently said that John was possessed by a

demon, probably in effort to explain his extreme asceticism and location in the wilderness. Other

evidences for opposition and challenge to John are likewise present in the tradition. From other

angles, however, it is clear that John was a quite popular and, one may even say, successful

wilderness evangelist. All of the canonical Gospels stress the large crowds that flocked to see

John, and Josephus corroborates this (others came in crowds about him, Ant. 18.118). Josephus

indicates that Johns popularity persisted after his death, since some admirers had attributed

Herods defeat by the Nabatean Aretas to divine punishment for killing John (Ant. 18.116). It

would be foolish to take the impression of popularity as one fact of the tradition and pit it

against the other fact of rejection, concluding that we must either choose one impression as

more reliable than the other, or decide that we should starkly periodize Johns career. A much

more reasonable explanation is that John encountered different people during his ministry, and

some liked him and listened to him, while others did not. Perhaps there was some development

here. But the key thing is that memories of both popularity and rejection are not absolute but

rather relative to Johns reception among particular audiences. We should assume something

similar for the historical Jesus.

392
 CHAPTER 8.0:

FINAL THOUGHTS

This project, described in the Introduction as a commentary on the theory of a Galilean crisis,

has come full circle. We have investigated where the idea came from, what forms it took, and

whether or not there is anything to it for our knowledge of the historical Jesus. Since I already

closed each chapter with an accessible summary of the important conclusions, I wish at this point

to step back and offer some broader observations.

The crisis theory intrigues because the interpretive and historical issues that animate it

capture what critical study of the Gospels and the historical Jesus is all about. That is why our

discussion of prior literature should be of interest for any and all study of Jesus. On the whole,

the crisis theory is an attempt to make sense of four Gospels that do not always agree with each

other, that have troubling gaps in their chronologies, and that narrate rather than systematize

theological stories about the kingdom of God, ethics, suffering, death, and the future. Readers

have found tensions in these stories that, in their estimation, the Gospels do not acceptably

resolve. Moreover, the Gospels raise questions about Jesus character, temperament, and past

experiences which they do not answer.

The crisis theory also intrigues because the recognition of such interpretive problems is

not unique to the modern period. Since the beginning, Christians have wondered about the life of

393
their Lord. The Gospels, as they stand, have not fully satisfied that curiosity. Some readers strove

to identify overarching patterns in the Gospels episodic presentations, and sometimes moved

pericopae around so as to be more commonsensical. Others posited, intentionally or

unintentionally, backstories to certain teachings and deeds that were actually contrary to the

narrative frames of the Gospels themselves. Well before Hase (1829) we see harmonists and

paraphrasers of the Gospels popularizing the idea that Jesus found early success and/or growing

opposition, and others who started breaking Jesus ministry into periods and sections of

activity. Still others began to explore the possibility that Jesus did not always intend to end his

career on the cross, assuming that that makes better sense of his teachings.

Thus, as much as the crisis theory is very much a product of the modern Quest for Jesus

and fits squarely within its historiographical assumptions and aims, it is also constructed around

interpretive and historical moves that are quite old. Moreover, it is shaped by earlier exegetical

conventions, preexisting habits of reading, and the material culture of books. Many early forms

of the crisis theory in the 19th century were historical solutions to very theologically,

philosophically, and socially constructed problems. That pre-history contributed to a horizon of

expectation that made it possible for 19th-century readers of the Gospels to reach the

conclusions they did.1192 The crisis theory is intelligible as a part of that larger story.1193

1192
On Jauss and horizon of expectation see Evans, Reception History, Tradition and
Biblical Interpretation, 10-13, 40-44.
1193
And on the importance of grasping that larger story before attempting to reconstruct
the historical Jesus, note Paul Ricoeur, History and Rhetoric, Diogenes 168 (1994): 7-24 at 22:
Before presenting themselves as master craftsmen of stories made out of the past, historians
must first stand as heirs of the pastBefore even forming the idea of re-presenting the past, we
are in debt to the men and women of the past who contributed to making us what we are. Before
we can represent the past we must live as beings affected by the past.

394
 Some of these contingent influences on the development of the crisis theory challenge its

historical value, but it was further argued that a number of its conclusions should be revisited. Of

particular interest is the notion of a Galilean Spring and the suggestion that certain traditions in

the Gospels reflect on, and hence respond to, rejection during Jesus own ministry. It is often

said that early Christians had to find theological explanations for why Israel rejected Jesus

because it was not expected that the people would by and large fail to heed the Messiah.1194

Should that be true, and I believe that it is, it also raises a question about the ministry of Jesus:

for if he regarded himself a special figure in the salvation history of Israel, perhaps even Gods

Anointed, would not rejection have raised similar questions for him and his followers? My

contention is this: a theological attempt to wrestle with rejection is not unique to the post-Easter

periodfor which the execution of Jesus pressed the question more forcefully than beforebut

is rather shared between the original Jesus movement and those who came after him.

Beyond that, however, the crisis theory as it developed in modern research is not

compelling as a historical hypothesis. It is natural that historians try to infer more about the

career of Jesus than the Gospels have thought necessary to preserve. Historians do this all the

time, and often for good reason. Many assume that Jesus, at a time that not one of our sources

recall, was a disciple of John the Baptist.1195 In addition, it is sometimes thought that Jesus must

have ministered for some time in Galilee before calling his first disciples, since Mark 1:16-20

1194
E.g. Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological
Background of Johns Prologue (JSNTSup 89; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 177-
78; Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark (repr.; London; New York: Continuum,
2001 [orig. 1981]), 69.
For discussion see Josef Ernst, War Jesus ein Schler Johannes des Taufers?, in
1195

Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus: fr Joachim Gnilka (eds. Hubert Frankmolle and Karl Kertelge;
Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 13-33; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 350-52.

395
and par. is psychologically improbable.1196 One could muster many similar examples, and even

outside of historical Jesus research.1197 But in all the crisis theory is based on inferences of

another scale altogether. And in my judgment it does not do justice to the extant Jesus tradition

that must be the starting and ending point for all reconstructive work.

So how do these positive and negative evaluations fit together? I would say that we find

ourselves in a position analogous to what form criticism has concluded about the Gospel

tradition.1198 That is, we know that the tradition changed during the oral period for which we

1196
See Strauss, Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 310-11; E. P. Sanders, The Historical
Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), 118-19; Marcus, Mark 1-8, 182.
1197
Attempts to reconstruct the career of Muhammad on the basis of the Quran is in
many ways similar to the task of historical Jesus research, since in both cases we have primary
sources that only indirectly addresses the questions which interest the historian. It is also
interesting that some of these projects on Muhammad assume that polemical and hostile
language is better suited to a later point in his career than at its outset. It is not entirely
surprising, then, to find reconstructions of Muhammads career that parallel the narrative of the
crisis theory rather closely. See, e.g., the famous work by Richard Bell, The Qurn: Translated,
with a Critical Re-arrangement of the Surahs (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1937-39). Bells
portrait of Muhammad is summarized by Herbert Berg, Context: Muammad, in The
Blackwell Companion to the Qurn (ed. Andrew Rippin; Malden: Blackwell, 2006), 187-204 at
193 as follows: Muhammads mission began with the limited purpose of urging the local
Meccans to recognize Gods bounties in creation and to worship Him alone. However, the
resistance and indifference of the Meccans led to the incorporation of the notion of temporal
punishment. With the acquisition of information about the other monotheistic traditions, the idea
of eschatological punishment was introduced along with a stricter monotheism. This resistance
developed into open opposition and persecution until Muhammad and his followers emigrated to
Medina. Once there, the revelations to Muhammad also appealed to the People of the Book to
accept Muhammad as a messenger of God. With their opposition came a turning point; the
People of the Book were rejected and the religion of islm, the surrender to God, was introduced
with its accompanying vocabulary.
1198
Hgerland, Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research, 00, rightly notes that
some recent studies have overstated the demise of form critical conclusions in effort to
problematize the criteria of authenticity.

396
have very little evidence, but we do not know exactly what that modification looked like.1199 We

can affirm, with generalities, that stories shrunk, grew, evolved, and were invented. We can

readily grant that certain theological questions became more pressing to the Church while others

faded from view. But as to specifics about the process we can say little. So too with the career of

Jesus. It indeed appears that early success characterized his start in the Galilee. There are

further reasons to think that opposition grew toward him in some respects because of his

popularity, and that his movement was ultimately rejected in places where he devoted much time

and effort. But we are unable to connect all the dots and trace the development.

What this means, ultimately, is that the most interesting question of all we cannot answer:

did Jesus think his work in the Galilee a success? There are, as I see it, two difficulties in

answering this question. One is phenomenological: the facts are not what is seen. Paul could

write to Rome that he had finished proclaiming the Gospel and was now ready to head west

(Rom 15:19-20), even though his circle ( ),

we might say, is quite narrowly drawn, the status of several churches was precarious at best, and

he had many opponents, perhaps even losing Galatia to some of them. It is safe to say that if we

did not have Rom 15:19-20 we would probably not guess that that was Pauls perspective on his

work. But there it is. In the case of Jesus we lack a Rom 15:19-20. All we have preserved is

evidence that he experienced rejection and that he tried to make theological sense of

disappointing experiences. I do not think we can produce a generalization about Jesus view of

his ministry as a whole from anything discussed thus far.

1199
See here Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 14-16; Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and
nd
Jesus (2 ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002 [orig. 1989]), 170-77. See also Tuckett,
Form Criticism, 27-28.

397
 The second difficulty is finding a thread to connect Jesus activities in Galilee with what

happens in Jerusalem. In my view this has never been successfully done. Questions always

remain. Crisis theorists have typically understood Jesus actions in Jerusalem as largely negative,

shaped by his prior failure in the Galilee.1200 This often entailed predicting judgment on the

temple and/or Israel as a whole, or traveling to the holy city with the expectation to die. Such

options are possible of course, but they are, to my mind, lopsided solutions, and it overstates

matters to say Jesus Jerusalem activity stands in stark discontinuity with what came

before.1201 Jesus in Jerusalem does not strike me as one who just emerged from the Galilee

defeated. He still commands crowds of sympathizers. The religious experts who formerly

opposed him in the Galilee fade from view.1202 He does not speak only of judgment, but teaches,

as before (e.g. Mark 12:35, 38 and par.; Matt 21:23; Luke 20:1; etc.). His so-called triumphal

1200
On rejection in Galilee as one of the key reasons Jesus left for Jerusalem, see e.g.
Bacon, Beginnings, 97-98; Bauman, Life and Teachings, 56; Dodd, Historical Tradition in the
Fourth Gospel, 323-24. I doubt that, before his final Passover, Jesus had left Galilee out of fear
of Antipaseven though concern about Herod may help explain his itinerancy. It makes little
sense to think that Jesus fled the Galilee out of fear of Herod, only then to come to Jerusalem on
its busiest and most politically charged week of the yearwhen the Roman garrison was
stationed there, no lessand stage what were likely the most provocative actions of career: the
triumphal entry and temple action.
1201
So Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 21 (ein starkes Moment von
Diskontinuitt). See also Rau, Jesus, Freund von Zllnern und Sndern, 161; idem, Die
Ablehnung Jesu, 86.
1202
As is well known, in Jerusalem Jesus opponents all but cease to be the Pharisees and
become the leaders of the temple cult. Hence there is no clear connection between that conflict in
the Galilee and Jesus execution. To forge a connection here, Dodd, Founder of Christianity, 78,
invented the theory of an alliance: objections to certain features of his teachingdrove the
Pharisees into an unnatural (and strictly temporary) alliance with the worldly hierarchy, whose
motives for pursuing Jesus to death were quite other. For a similar view see John Bowker, Jesus
and the Pharisees (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 42 (Pharisaic extremists in
the Galilee alerted others in authority to the dangers implicit in Jesus position).

398
entry on an ass, which I believe is historical,1203 assumes that things are moving toward a climax

for Israel.1204 The meaning of the temple action is notoriously obscure,1205 but if symbolic of

coming destructionwhich is likely, but may not be the full picturethere are no grounds to

make rejection in Galilee a necessary subtext. I am attracted to the hypothesis that it was a

recognition of rejection that caused Jesus to make sense of his death beforehand,1206 but I do not

know how to place that in relation to the rest of the ministry. Again, it does not seem that

dramatic failure in Galilee is a necessary subtext. The larger question of what Jesus thought of

his death is an interesting and important one that would extend the scope of this book too much.

Whatever Jesus thought of his prior ministry in the Galilee, it is more important to say,

and more confidently it can be said, that he was still hopeful in the same mission that inspired

him at the beginning: to announce that Gods kingdom was dawning and was soon to be revealed

in full, and that all the people would see it together.

See Brent Kinman, Jesus Royal Entry into Jerusalem, in Bock and Webb, Key
1203

Events, 383-428.
1204
See here Ben Meyer, Jesus and the Remnant of Israel, JBL 84 (1965): 123-130 at
126.
1205
For discussion see Tan, Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus, 158-96; Jostein dna,
Jesu Stellung zum Temple (WUNT 119; Tbingen: Mohr, 2000); Alexander J. M. Wedderburn,
Jesus Action in the Temple: A Key or a Puzzle?, ZNW 97 (2006): 1-22.
1206
See pp. 240 note 741 above.

399
 APPENDIX:

JESUS, THE LAW, AND GROWING OPPOSITION

I begin by pointing out a historical conundrum that our sources preserve for us. According to my

researches, this conundrum has never been explicitly named, though, once named, it helps to

explain many of the perspectives on Jesus and the Law that have emerged throughout the years.

This conundrum closely parallels another one that concerns the end of Jesus life. In that later

case, we have a disjuncture between what happened to Jesus in Jerusalem, and the content of

Jesus message as it has been preserved. It is well known: Jesus was executed as a political

insurrectionist, and yet his message is nothing of the kind.1207 Thus the effect (execution) does

not have an explicable cause in what Jesus thought he was doing. There are a number of ways to

resolve the conundrum: (a) on one end, deny it exists, and posit that Jesus actually was a

revolutionist and the tradition has been subject to a massive cover-up;1208 (b) on the other end,

deny it exists, and posit that Jesus was killed for the nobility of his ideas or message (a very

1207
On this question, see W. O. Walker, The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A
Discussion of Methodology, ATR 51 (1969): 38-56 at 55; Craig A. Evans, From Public
Ministry to the Passion: Can a Link Be Found between the (Galilean) Life and the (Judean)
Death of Jesus?, in Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (Leiden; Boston: Brill,
2002), 373-88.
1208
This view has made a recent comeback, but still fails to compel. Cf. Martin, Jesus in
Jerusalem, 3-24; Bermejo-Rubio, Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance, 1-105. Note how
Bermejo-Rubio addresses this historical issue: a harmless and peaceful man turns the well-
attested fact of the crucifixion into an unfathomable conundrum (74).

400
ahistorical reconstruction); (c) conclude there is no historical solution, because Jesus was killed

more or less by accident or whim;1209 (d) conclude that Jesus intended something non-political,

but he was perceived as either intending or being swept up by (unintentionally) a more

subversive end. All views on Jesus crucifixion fit into these general categories in one way or

another. To my mind, (d) is nearest the truth, though it not important to defend that here.

We are faced with a similar dilemma, I believe, when it comes to controversies between

Jesus and the sages of his day. It is this: according to the presentation of the Gospels, which is

where we must start and end our investigation, this opposition became quite harsh and

vitriolic.1210 Yet when we look at the content of Jesus teaching about the Law, it is hard to find

what could have generated that response. Hence, there is a disjuncture between effect and cause.

One could try to deny that the conundrum is real. One could contend, on the one hand, that

Jesus teachings about the Law really were offensive enough to generate such controversy. I do

not think that this view is viable, for reasons that will become clear below.1211 On the other hand,

1209
Perhaps a fair characterization of Paula Fredriksens view that Jesus lost control of
his audience in Jerusalem; see Jesus of Nazareth, 247, 252.
1210
Meier, Companions and Competitors, 338: If some of the woes against the Pharisees
go back to the historical Jesus, then the debate between the Pharisees and himself became at
times fierce and vituperativewhich is quite typical of the defaming of adversaries practiced in
the ancient Mediterranean world. For reasons to think that such woes capture antagonism during
Jesus ministry, see Gustaf Auln, Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1976), 61-63; Schrmann, Redekomposition wider dieses Geschlecht und seine
Fhrung in der Redenquelle, 33-81; Eckhard Rau, Jesu Auseinandersetzung mit Pharisern
ber seine Zuwendung zu Snderinnen und Sndern: Lk 15,11-32 und Lk 18,10-14a als Worte
des historischen Jesus, ZNW 89 (1998): 5-29; idem, Jesus, Freund von Zllnern und Sndern,
126-66; Meier, Companions and Competitors, 332-40; Casey, Aramaic Approach to Q, 64-104.
1211
Proponents of this view often set Jesus above his Jewish context; see e.g. Helmut
Merkel, The Opposition between Jesus and Judaism, in Bammel and Moule, Jesus and the
Politics of His Day, 129-44 at 44: Once we become aware of how often Jesus burst through the
bounds of conventional thought and behaviour, we must regard a conflict between him and the
representatives of the traditional order as unavoidable.

401
one could argue that we search in vain for a historical solution in the life of Jesus because the

controversies are projections from the situation of the later Church.1212 This is a more serious

objection. But it too does not convince. It cannot be denied that the controversy narratives often

function as two level dramas. Matthews particular focus on the Pharisees may assume a later,

post-70 CE situation, when that group was beginning to fill a power-vacuum in Judaism created

by the destruction of the temple.1213 But the simple fact that the Gospels reflect later realities

does not thereby imply that these controversies are historically worthless.1214 The Synoptic Jesus

does not simply mirror the actions of later, particularly Gentile or loosely-observant Jewish

Christians.1215 He does not openly transgress the Law, or declare it void. He says nothing about

1212
See Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 39-61; Gsta Lindeskog, Die
Jesusfrage im neuzeitlichen Judentum (Uppsala: Lundquist, 1938); Paul Winter, On the Trial of
Jesus (2nd ed.; SJ 1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974 [orig. 1961]), 175 (All the Marcan controversy
stories, without exception, reflect disputes between the Apostolic Church and its social
environment, and are devoid of roots in the circumstances of the life of Jesus [italics orig.]);
Arland J. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in
the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1979), 19 (the conflict stories composed at
various periods in the history of tradition), 39 (composed by early Christian storytellers
specifically for the needs of the newly developing Christian movement), though see also 19,
198-99; Smith, Magician, 22-23, 29, 153-57; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 291 (Jesus had little
contact, either hostile or cordial with the Pharisees); Mack, A Myth of Innocence, 375.
1213
See Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:133-38. For another
take see Peter Fiedler, Studien zur biblischen Grundlegung des christlich-jdischen Verhltnisses
(Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 209-31.
1214
Cf. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, 51 (It is hardly conceivable that
the whole picture of an on-going controversy between Jesus and the sages of his time is
fictional); Gnilka, Jesus of Nazareth, 268 (We must not be tempted to assume that the insertion
of a later conflict between the church and the Pharisaically shaped synagogue means that there
were no conflicts at all between Jesus and the Pharisees, or even that it favors the notion that
Jesus himself has to be considered part of the Pharisaic orientation).
1215
Contra Mack, A Myth of Innocence, 177: the challenge to Jesus that invites his
address in the stories reflects in general the actual challenge that other Jewish movements posed
for these early Christian communities. On this point see esp. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, 36-37;
Martin Pickup, Matthews and Marks Pharisees, in Neusner and Chilton, Quest of the
Historical Pharisees (eds. Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton; Waco: Baylor University Press,
402
circumcision, which was a pressing issue for later followers of Jesus.1216 His activities on the

Sabbath have no clear parallel in the later period.1217 One could say that the controversy stories,

taken collectively, are like pictures that do not fit the frames which have been placed around

them.1218 In the Gospel of Mark, the Evangelist has used these stories to advance his own

liberalizing perspective on the Mosaic Law as a whole, but the stories are very ill suited for that

agenda.1219 He even uses them to explain the death of Jesus (3:6), even though the Pharisees and

Herodians completely drop from the picture once Jesus gets to Jerusalem. The earliest Gospel

appears to have made traditional materials serve a larger theological agenda for which they must

be stretched in order to fit. James Crossley is right to note in his recent book that The Synoptic

disputes are fairly typical halakhic disputes, which do not seem to have been of interest to the

early church outside of the Gospel tradition.1220 Crossley represents a trend in current Jesus

2007), 67-112 at 111. Pickup also is keen to remind (at 67, 111) that Marks claims about Jesus
interactions with the Pharisees (most of which are intact in Matthew if only accentuated in
certain ways) stem from around 70 CE, and thus must tell us something about the historical
Pharisees prior to 70 CE, even if the controversies are in some sense ideal scenes.
1216
Unlike Gos. Thom. 53.
1217
Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 684-85, may be right that the traditions used
by the Fourth Evangelist concerning the healing of the paralyzed man by the pool of Bethezda
(John 5:1-9) and the healing of the man born blind (John 9:1-7) did not originally refer to the
Sabbath. I do not know what to think.
This picture/frame language appears in Dodds famous article, Framework of the
1218

Gospel Narrative, 399, though to different ends.

1219
Two examples: (a) the episode of picking grain on the Sabbath (e.g. what is
permissible on the Sabbath) becomes, eventually, an opportunity for Jesus to express his lordship
over the Sabbath itself (2:28). See here Meier, Law and Love, 267-93. (b) Mark turns the
controversy over handwashing into an opportunity for Jesus to abolish the food laws (7:19). See
Marcus, Mark 1-8, 447-48.
1220
Crossley, Chaos of History, 51. He is also right to note that controversy and debate
about the proper interpretation of the Law was commonplace in Palestinian Judaism (see 123-
24).

403
study that has generally found more history in these controversy narratives than our 20th-century

forbearers.1221 This hardly settles the matter, but it is safe to state at this point that we cannot pin

all of the conflict on the later Church.

My solution to the conundrum is similar to (d) above concerning the crucifixion of Jesus.

In particular: Jesus did not intend to break the Law, and did not teach others to do so, but he was

thought by some a lawbreaker on account of the company he kept and certain things that he said

to his followers.1222 The opposition to Jesus that developed, then, was not merely a clashing

between different approaches to the Torah. It was a response to the concrete reality of his

growing movement and concern about what that entailed.

In defense of this proposal, we should state at the outset how this approach differs from

other common treatments of Jesus, the Law, and the controversies. The typical course of action is

to take all of the Synoptic and Johannine material that may be considered relevant to the question

at hand, consider each datum individually, and try to identify wider theological coherence among

the whole. The aim is to find Jesus view of the Law, or the intentions of Jesus teaching about

the Law.1223 This is not a futile endeavor, by any means. But it does place an inordinate focus on

1221
Though it is not as though all the earlier form critics were so skeptical. Vincent
Taylor was characteristically conservative here in The Formation of the Gospel Tradition
(London: Macmillan and Co., 1933). For some recent work see Tom Holmn, Jesus and Jewish
Covenant Thinking (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001), 88-274; Keener, Historical Jesus of the
Gospels, 225-27; Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 313-52; Keith, Jesus against the Scribal Elite.
Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, 11-35, was right to argue that Jesus
1222

conduct perhaps raised the question of legality, but he did not breach the Law as such.
1223
Just a sampling: Strauss, Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 297-300; Bornkamm,
Jesus of Nazareth, 96-109; Saunders, Jesus in the Gospels, 209-22; Schweizer, Jesus, 30-34;
Douglas J. Moo, Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law, JSNT 20 (1984): 3-49; Peter
Fiedler, Die Tora bei Jesus und in der Jesusberlieferung, in Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament
(ed. Karl Kertelge; QD 108; Freiburg: Herder, 1986), 71-87; R. P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of
Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7 (JSNTSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1986); Barnabas Lindars, All Foods Clean: Thoughts on Jesus and the Law, in Law and
404
Jesus intentions, and downplays or even ignores an equally important consideration: how Jesus

was perceived with respect to the Law. Critics have been attentive to a possible distinction here

when it comes to the crucifixion of Jesus, but generally not in regards to this issue. We do not

need to think that Jesus was a poor communicator, or that he was misunderstood by his

audience, to conclude that intention and perception did not always agree. This becomes clear

when we think concretely about Jesus ministry and the material that has been preserved.1224 We

do not have Jesus systematic theology of the Law because he never produced one. We have

instead a collection of varied material that was intended for varied audiences. This material

includes his public proclamation, teaching to his immediate followers, conflicts with opponents,

Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity (Cambridge: James
Clarke, 1988), 61-71; Alan Watson, Jesus and the Law (Athens: University of Georgia Press,
1996); Gnilka, Jesus of Nazareth, 208-47; William R. G. Loader, Jesus Attitude towards the
Law: A Study of the Gospels (WUNT 97; Tbingen: Mohr, 1997), 518-24; Theissen and Merz,
Historical Jesus, 359-72; Thomas Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to
Purity? (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2002); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 563-83; Allison,
Torah, Urzeit, Endzeit, Resurrecting Jesus, 149-97; Meier, Law and Love, 75 (as but one
example: it is vital to remember what our focus is. We are asking only what a particular
Palestinian Jew named Jesus taught other Palestinian Jews about divorce ca. A.D. 28; see also
342 on purity); Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was (trans.
Linda M. Maloney; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2012), 190-215; Thomas Kazen, Scripture,
Interpretation or Authority? Motives and Argument in Jesus Halakic Conflicts (WUNT 320;
Tbingen: Mohr, 2013); Per Bilde, Originality of Jesus, 137-45; LaCocque, Jesus the Central
Jew, 131-68.
1224
For some early thoughts along these lines, although mistaken in other ways, see R.
Travers Herford, Judaism in the New Testament Period (London: Lindsey Press, 1928), 200-01:
Each (Jesus and the Pharisees) was seen by the other in the least favorable aspect. The Pharisees
never saw him, and never could see him, as his friends of the multitude saw him. Dunn, Jesus
Remembered, 576, also penned a few sentences on such matters, noting that Jesus teaching was
heard differently. Some heard Jesus as not content to debate issues of purity solely at the level of
ritual but pressing home the concerns behind such law and halakhoth to the more fundamental
level of purity of motive and intention. Others heard Jesus, when the teaching was rehearsed
within wider circles of discipleship, as validating or commending a more radical conclusion, to
the effect that Israels purity law no longer applied to the followers of Jesus. See also J. Arthur
Baird, Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969);
Robert Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1975), 240-41.

405
and probably ad hoc statements that were not repeated. We may be able to reconstruct with high

probability what Jesus really thought by weaving together all of this material. We may well

conclude that he was perfectly consistent and everything fits nicely into some eschatological

scheme. But it should be obvious that that process would not help very much in explaining what

Jesus contemporaries thought of him. People formed opinions about Jesus not after carefully

considering everything he had to say on a particular topic, for few would ever have had that

opportunity. The disciples of Jesus may have known him in this capacity, because they left their

homes and were with him daily. But most others would have had to form their view of Jesus only

on the basis of hearsay or by listening him speak on particular occasions. The history of

interpretation itself proves this is true. We find in Christian exegesis of the Gospels a countless

number of perspectives on Jesus view of the Law.1225 Why is this? It is at least partly due to the

fact that we, like some of Jesus original hearers, do not have the whole picture.1226 We have

only snapshots of things that he said and did. From this vantage point one can easily emphasize

or downplay certain particulars, or simply end up at the wrong place because of collective

ignorance. Readers make sense of the micro evidence on the basis of their macro perspective on

Jesus and what he was about, which may be well or ill informed.1227 Hence diversity of opinion,

diversity of perception, is inevitable, and so it must have been at the beginning.

1225
Beginning, of course, with the Gospels themselves, which, as Loader shows in detail
in his big study Jesus Attitude toward the Law: No two gospels are identical in their approach
to Jesus attitude toward the Law (509). See also Helmut Merklein, Jesu Botschaft von der
Gottesherrschaft: eine Skizze (3rd ed.; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989 [orig. 1983]), 94.
1226
In our case this is also partly due to our lack of familiarity with the interpretive
traditions Jesus assumed and worked with; so John P. Meier, The Historical Jesus and the
Historical Law: Some Problems within the Problem, CBQ 65 (2003): 52-79.
1227
E.g., for the majority of Christian history, Jesus was the new lawgiver who had
replaced Judaism with the Church and, at least in the Reformation period, the Law with the
Gospel. His view of the Law, then, naturally confirmed that portrait.

406
 The advantage of focusing on perception rather than intention is that it allows us to take

what I consider to be the best insights of 19th-century and 20-21st-century research on this

question. To generalize: most scholars have hesitated in recent years to say that Jesus really had

offensive things to say about the Lawe.g., that he abolished the Law or declared parts of it null

in some way.1228 That must be right, for otherwise the early decades of Christian origins are

inexplicable. But the older research is probably also on target in its common estimation that, in

the eyes of the learned, Jesus had an offensive if not damnable perspective on the Law. Their

reasoning for this was flawed, because it was often assumed that Jesus himself actually held such

offensive opinions about the Law (e.g. that he intended to overturn it, or abolish it), and was

informed by later Christian views of grace and internal righteousness.1229 They saw the

controversies between Jesus and his opponents as a controversy between Christianity and

Judaism (and a caricatured Judaism at that).1230 But the general insight here, I submit, should be

affirmed, as it best explains why Jesus was worth paying attention to and taking the effort to

oppose.

1228
Particularly important here was the work of Vermes. Cf. his Geza Vermes, The
Religion of Jesus the Jew (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 11-45. Though see before him
Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 367. Meier writes in Law and Love, 126: it is nonsense to speak of
the Jewish Jesus abrogating or annulling the Mosaic Law. See also Harvey, Jesus and the
Constraints of History, 37; Flusser, Jesus, 58-66.
1229
Another factor in the popularity of this view was the common assumption that the
Law would be abolished or revised in the messianic age, a view which even Klausner, Jesus of
Nazareth, 275, held, and, on the basis of which, he argued that Jesus abolished the food laws (not
as a rejection of the Torah).
1230
Cf. e.g. Baur, Church History, 1:30, where he states, among Jesus teaching being
qualitatively different than the Mosaic Law, Jesus consistently taught that the inner is
opposed to the outer, the disposition to the act, the spirit to the letter. He described this as Jesus
Idealisirung of the Law. Cf. Susannah Heschel, The German Theological Tradition, in
Neusner and Chilton, Quest of the Historical Pharisees, 353-74; Anders Gerdmar, Roots of
Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and
Semler to Kittel and Bultmann (SJHC 20; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009).

407
 Relevant to this line of inquiry is Chris Keiths recent study, Jesus against the Scribal

Elite, which is the first book-length treatment of the origins of the controversy between Jesus

and the scribal elite.1231 Keiths study is to my knowledge the first to reflect seriously on the

following:

we may grant Jesuss healings, exorcisms, and particular perspective on Torah would
have garnered him attention from the scribal authorities, but only under the circumstance
that Jesuss opinion mattered in the first place. And with regard to the circumstance that
Jesuss opinion did matter, unlike that of thousands and thousands of other Jews in the
Second Temple period, we may ask the simple but poignant question Why? Why did
the authorities care at all what Jesus thought or did? Why did they not dismiss him as a
harmless madman?1232

It is a great question. We may presume that so few have asked it because, to their minds, Jesus

was the most interesting thing going in Galilee in the first century, and so everyone was naturally

interested in what he had to say. Keith puts the matter in a more realistic historical framework,

which is what raises the quandary: since Jesus was a Galilean peasant, possibly illiterate, and

was certainly not the first to disagree with Pharisees and scribes on this or that, why the raucous?

I find Keiths ultimate response to his question suggestive but not convincing. Keith

argues that it was Jesus status as a teacher that is fundamental to the origin of the controversy

narratives. In other words, the conflict that emerged between Jesus and the scribal-literate

authorities was related to his authority to be teaching in the first place. Jesus, who did not

possess what Keith calls scribal-literate status, was nevertheless able to convince some that he

had such status, which led the true scribal elite to try and expose Jesus as a fraud. It is a

creative reconstruction. The problem, however, is that Keith fails to demonstrate that there

existed a widely-recognized line (that) divided authoritative teachers (scribal-literate

1231
Keith, Jesus against the Scribal Elite, 7.
1232
Keith, Jesus against the Scribal Elite, 13 (italics orig.).

408
authorities) from everyone else.1233 Classist views such as that represented in Sirach 38 can be

presumed to exist in any culture,1234 but it is unlikely that, in an unregulated pre-70 synagogual

system,1235 the mere fact of Jesus teaching would be considered the violation of some rule.

Keiths categoriesparticularly his construction of a scribal literate statuscomplete much

of the legwork for his argument. The controversy over status does not arise naturally from the

Gospels themselves, and Keiths readings are rather forced.1236

1233
Keith, Jesus against the Scribal Elite, 36. Here are two reasons why: (1) Four of
Keiths six key factors of scribal authority (20) are not actually positive evidence for the
existence of a particular class of persons whose rare skills translated into interpretive authority
(27). His points about majority illiteracy, degrees of literacy, the separate literary skills of
reading and writing, and multilingualism (21-26) are all interesting and illuminating, but
would, at most, only constitute a negative argument that suggests, to paraphrase, given the
historical reality that so few could read the biblical texts, we should consider it likely that those
select few who could do so had interpretive authority. That is a different angle than the thesis of
Chapter 1 presents to the reader. (2) Keiths final two factors of scribal authority claim to
confirm a particular set of recognizable roles in the synagogue (33). But again Keiths
argument, if I understand it right, is not just that most people were unable to read and access the
Scriptures and so those who were able typically did so. His claim is a bolder one: the scribal
elite had a status as authoritative interpreters of Scripture in the synagogue, such that the
historical Jesus could be faulted for violating some norm or rule not merely by the content of his
teaching, but by the fact of his teaching at all.
1234
Moreover, Sir 38 is not a sober description of sociological fact; it is an ideologically
driven paean to the learned.
1235
A rather striking lacuna in Keiths study is engagement with current work on pre-70
synagogues in Palestine, especially since he makes claims such as the following: scribal-literate
authoritiestypically ran synagogues in Galilee (142).
1236
Particularly troublesome here are Keiths attempts to boil down the controversy
narratives to two issuesscripture and authoritywhich he then connects with scribal
literate status. This is, to my mind, a good example of the gist method in Jesus research gone
wrong, for Keith never attends to the details of these passages before subsuming them to his
particular interests in these larger categories. For instance, for the authority question, I do not
see one single text that Keith refers to that has anything to do with scribal status. Did the scribes
have the authority to enter Jerusalem on an ass and overturn the tables of the moneychangers?
Did the scribal elite have the authority to forgive sins? Perhaps one could make an argument
that the Gospels have christologized this authority language which had concerned only scribal
status originally. But that is not Keiths claim, since he thinks all of the Evangelists are aware of
his category of scribal literate status and relate it to Jesus in different ways.

409
 Nonetheless, I appreciate and find historically valuable what Keith is trying to do, which

is to supplement traditional reconstructions of the conflict which focus on the intentions of Jesus

teaching, or the content of his message, alone. To repeat the view taken here: the authorities

care(d) at all (about) Jesus thought or did because of concern about the growth of a movement

surrounding a man perceived to be a lawbreaker.

Keith cites as representative of the traditional view Craig Keeners big book on Jesus

(2009), which claims Jesusmust have been aware that it (his eschatological teaching) would

provoke hostility from the eliteHealings and exorcisms could point people to depend on God

rather than the old order for their fundamental needs.1237 Keener later claims that Jesus

frequently non-Pharisaic approach to the Law would have brought him into conflict with the

Pharisees.1238 In both cases it is the content of Jesus teaching or activityboth well understood

by the opponentsto have generated the conflict.1239 Keith says that he does not necessarily

disagree with Keener, and that the factors Keener describes could explain why there was

conflict to a degree.1240 But here I dissent. First of all, to say that Jesus healings and exorcisms

were controversial because they told people to depend on God cannot be considered a serious

historical proposal. There is nothing inherently controversial about healings and exorcisms, far

less about depending on God. Keeners point about shunning the old order is another

abstraction that quickly breaks down when one thinks about particulars. Keener does not mean

1237
Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 38.
1238
Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 39.
1239
Though Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 223, does make passing reference to
the popularity of Jesus at one point: If Jesus other activities (such as healings) augmented his
popularity beyond that of most other teaches, others may have viewed him as undermining the
sound teachings they were laboring to cultivate among the people.
1240
Keith, Jesus against the Scribal Elite, 11.

410
that Jesus told people to reject the Law of Moses. An antinomian Jesus cannot hope to explain

the observance of the Law among Jewish Christians after his death, including his immediate

followers, as well as the debates that consumed the Church concerning the inclusion of the

Gentiles (where there was no help from Jesus to settle matters).1241

Keeners other suggestion about Jesus non-Pharisaic approach to the law may be right.

We do not know much about first-century Pharisaism, but we know enough to say that Jesus

opposed typically Pharisaic views on a series of individual topics.1242 Ed Sanderss view of the

Pharisees as ecumenical Jews who were comfortable with difference strikes me as an

anachronistic, if not apologetical, perspective.1243 Perhaps it was issues of handwashing, tithing,

and fasting that cultivated sufficient frustration among certain Pharisees to oppose Jesus

publicly. But there are problems. On the one hand, this view has the tendency to set up Jesus as

someone who went around the Galilee preaching against the Pharisees.1244 That I doubt. Jesus

held halachic views, obviously, but he was not remembered as a halachic teacher.1245 His

1241
See Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 315: Neither the actions nor the words
of the historical Jesus had given precise and detailed instructions for such an initiative.
1242
Cf. Stephen Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority (ConBNT 10; Lund: C. W. K.
Gleerup, 1978); Theiseen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 229-30; Jacob Neusner, The Pharisaic
Agenda: Laws Attributed in the Mishnah and the Tosefta to the Pre-70 Pharisees, in Neusner
and Chilton, Quest of the Historical Pharisees, 313-28; Schrter, Jesus of Nazareth, 119-20.
1243
See also Jacob Neusner, The Debate with E. P. Sanders since 1970, in Neusner and
Chilton, Quest of the Historical Pharisees, 395-408 at 404.
1244
Borgs study Conflict, Holiness and Politics, tends in this direction, since he
conceived Jesus and the Pharisees engaged in a hermeneutical battle about the validity of the
quest for holiness as the vocation of Israel (153-54). Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels,
234, admits that Some Pharisees may have agreed with Jesus emphasis on inner rather than
outer purity, but then speculates that they normally stated it only in private.
1245
On point here was Saunders, Jesus in the Gospels, 205: If all the controversial
discourses and sayings and answers to questions, which were so to speak wrung from Him, were
subtracted from the sum of His utterances, how much of the didactic preaching of Jesus would be
left over? asks Albert Schwetizer. The answer obviously is, remarkably little, remarkably, that
411
teaching naturally touched on the Law, exposited it, and held it up as Gods sacred Writ.1246 He

surely opposed Pharisees on occasion. But none of that means we can define Jesus approach

to the Law as non-Pharisaic. (In fact, not only is our evidence too scant and fragmentary to

identify, as Beker and countless others have tried with Paul,1247 the coherence or center of

Jesus thought on the Law, it is not self-evident that he even had one.1248) Moreover, as Meier

has written and countless others have shown, there were probably contrasting and clashing

tendencies within Palestinian Judaism in regard to purity.1249 In light of such difference, is

unlikely that Jesus having his own view of thingsand he does not appear to have rejected

purity concerns outright1250would have been so controversial.1251 And finally, if the opposition

is, if one entertains the erroneous notion that Jesus was principally a teacher of the scribal sort,
dispensing instruction on religious and moral issues, based upon Scripture and tradition.
1246
On Jesus debating the interpretation of the Law, see Schrter, Jesus of Nazareth, 66,
151-59; Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 281-312. On Galilee as a setting for such reflection, see
Morten Hrning Jensen, Purity and Politics in Herod Antipass Galilee: The Case for Religious
Motivation, JSHJ 11 (2013): 3-34.
Johan Christiaan Beker, Heirs of Paul: Pauls Legacy in the New Testament and in
1247

the Church Today (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 24-26. Cf. James D. G. Dunn, The
Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1-26.
1248
So Cadbury, Peril of Modernizing Jesus, 145-46; Smith, Magician, 23; Amy-Jill
Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006), 28: there is no indication that Jesus had a systematic
interpretation of the Torah. He did not, as did the rabbis, discuss the various distinctions of tort
law with other rabbinical scholars (italics orig.). Note also the insightful concluding thoughts of
Meier, Law and Love, 653-58: one cannot discern any moral or legal system containing some
organizing principle or center that makes sense of the whole (653). For him that is not only
because of the nature of our evidence, but because Jesus is best understood as a charismatic
leader and prophet, not a systematic halakhic thinker. This leads me to think that Meiers
mantra throughout Law and Love, e.g. 649, that the historical Jesus is the halakic Jesus, is
more rhetoric than substance.
1249
Meier, Law and Love, 351.
1250
Cf. Paula Fredriksen, Did Jesus Oppose the Purity Laws? BRev 11 (1995): 18-25,
42-47.

412
between Jesus and the Pharisees on these traditions of the elders was so absolute,1252 it is

inexplicable that Jesus would have sympathizers among them (Luke 7:36; 11:37; 13:31; Acts

15:5; John 3:1; Josephus, Ant. 20:9).1253

To clarify: that there was conflict over such issues cannot be seriously questioned. But it

is doubtful that disagreement on these matters alone is sufficient to explain the genesis of the

controversy. To raise again Keiths question: why care about Jesus opinion? If Jesus had grown

a following of people who were starting to imitate his activities and sympathize with his views,

then we might have cause for concern and reason to oppose Jesus publicly. Here we are very

close to my own view: popularity and a perception of offensive content. Still, as said, the offense

of Jesus was probably more severe than stepping on the toes of the Pharisees, at least to get the

controversy started. If Jesus came under fire because he was perceived to challenge the Law of

Moses, and that, because he was popular among the people, he was thought to be leading Israel

astray, then we could readily see why particular disagreements on Pharisaic special interests

were important: it was because they were couched within a larger perception that Jesus had said

1251
Contra K.-W Niebuhr, Jesus, Paulus und die Phariser: Beobachtungen zu ihren
historischen Zusammenhngen, zum Toraverstndnis und zur Anthropologie, RCT 34 (2009):
317-46.
1252
Against this see R. A. Wild, The Encounter between Pharisaic and Christian
Judaism: Some Early Gospel Evidence, NovT 27 (1985): 105-24. Per Bilde, Originality of
Jesus, 143, overstates matters when he says that Jesus rejected the oral tradition entirely and
stuck to the scriptures of the Jewish Bible alone.
1253
I think that some of these Lukan meal stories are from L. Cf. Patrick J. Mullen,
Dining with Pharisees (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2004), 80. This is not to deny the
important theological role the Pharisees play in Lukes narrative. See David Moessner, The
Leaven of the Pharisees and This Generation: Israels Rejection of Jesus According to Luke,
JSNT 34 (1988): 21-46; Amy-Jill Levine, Lukes Pharisees, in Neusner and Chilton, Quest of
the Historical Pharisees, 113-30.

413
offensive things about the Law. It would, moreover, explain the high temperature of the conflict

without having to attribute it to the early Church projecting its angst onto the tradition.

I will defend this larger reconstruction in two steps, (i) looking first at how conflicts

assume Jesus popularity, (ii) and then the likelihood that Jesus was perceived by some as a

lawbreaker.

(i) We turn again to consider another of Keiths insights in Jesus against the Scribal

Elite. Although he is not the first to do so, Keith helpfully situates the controversies in an

honor/shame value system.1254 He recognizes that in an honor-shame society, almost any social

interchangewas an opportunity to gain or lose honor.1255 Not only that, he argues that that

was probably the intention of some of the engagements of Jesus in public: the public critiques

and challenges were calculated rhetorical ploys designed to upstate and humiliate the other

party.1256 Keith argues along this line because he reads several of the controversies as attempts

by the scribal-literate authorities to reveal to the crowds that Jesus did not have scribal

literate status, and thus expose him to public humiliation. That may or may not be the case. But

one does not have to agree with Keith on that further point to note that, in taking this honor-

shame risk, such controversies presuppose that Jesus already had some public reputation. If the

1254
On these cultural values see essays in Honor and Shame (ed. Jean G. Pristiany;
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966); David D. Gilmore, Honor and Shame and the
Unity of the Mediterranean (Washington D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987).
Important for New Testament studies, and by no means uncontroversial, has been the study of
Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1981).
1255
Keith, Jesus against the Scribal Elite, 150. Cf. David M. May, Mark 3:20-35 from
the Perspective of Shame/Honor, BTB 17 (1987): 83-87; Joseph H. Hellerman, Challenging the
Authority of Jesus: Mark 11:27-33 and Mediterranean Notions of Honor and Shame, JETS 43
(2000): 213-28.
1256
Keith, Jesus against the Scribal Elite, 148. For similar thoughts here see Zeba Crook,
Honor, Shame, and Social Status Revisited, JBL 128 (2009): 591-611 at 601-02.

414
aim is to embarrass or condemn Jesus in the eye of the crowd, which is likely at least for some of

the exchanges (cf. e.g. Mark 8:11//Matt 16:1//Luke 11:16; Mark 10:2//Matt 19:3), they assume

the publicity of Jesus in that venue.

In support of this view, we should emphasize that the controversy stories, if they record

any history at all, are not intellectual debates about halakha like those found in the later rabbinic

literature. The conflicts, rather, are responses to and criticisms of the prior activities of Jesus.1257

This corroborates the idea above that certain conflicts try to do something about Jesus prior

work and reputation among the public.1258 If Jesus was asked about handwashing before meals

(Mark 7:5; Matt 15:2; cf. Luke 11:38),1259 was accused of violating the Sabbath (Mark 2:24 and

1257
See here Cadbury, Peril of Modernizing Jesus, 143 (Jesus had much to say about
conductbutHis remarks were usually in answer to concrete cases or questions); Loader,
Jesus Attitude toward the Law, 521 (One of the problems in approaching the traditions is that
they do not portray Jesus as a formal interpreter of the Law, despite what the Matthean antitheses
suggest. Much of Jesus instruction in Mark, and doubtless, therefore, in Markan tradition was
about mission, his own and that of his disciples, and about responses to it); William R. Farmer,
Reflections upon the Historical Perimeters for Understanding the Aims of Jesus, 59-82 at 67-
68. If the dispute story about divorce in Mark 10:2-12 commemorates some event in the life of
Jesusrather than being a creation of the Evangelist for an isolated saying about divorce (vv.
11-12) (so Jacob Kremer, Jesu Wort zur Ehescheidung, in Geschieden, Wiederverheiratet,
Abgewiesen? Antworten der Theologie [ed. Theodor Schneider; QD 157; Freiburg: Herder,
1995], 51-67 at 53-54)then it is necessary to suppose that Jesus is here questioned about
divorce because the Pharisees had heard about his former repudiation of the practice. That is a
plausible scenario. Cf. Meier, Law and Love, 121, 124.
1258
Crossley, Chaos of History, 110, wonders If, say, the Jesus movement gained
increasing numbers, might not some associated with a different group start to worry? Cf.
Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah, 263-99 (who sees Jesus and the Pharisees competing for
audiences in the Galilee). Note also that Meier, at the end of his discussion of Jesus and the
Pharisees in Companions and Competitors, 339, wrote this: The tone of the interaction
(between Jesus and the Pharisees) is often adversarial. This is not surprising, since both Jesus
and the Pharisees were competing to influence the main body of Palestinian Jews and win them
over to their respective visions of what God was calling Israel to be and do at a critical juncture
in its history. He does not take this idea any further.
Cf. Neil J. McEleney, Authenticating Criteria and Mark 7:1-23, CBQ 34 (1972):
1259

431-60; Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah, 60-88.

415
par.; 3:2 and par.; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6; John 5:2-18; 7:14-25; 9:1-17; cf. Gos. Thom. 27),1260

and was questioned about fasting (Mark 2:18 and par.; cf. Matt 16:16-18; Gos. Thom. 14, 27,

104),1261 it was because Jesus had been doing precisely those activities.1262 We can put it another

way: if Jesus had not acted in these ways at some point in his ministry, we would not have these

controversy narratives, since they are not decontextualized intellectual musings about purity,

defining work on the Sabbath, or proscribing fasts for the pious. Such conflicts position

themselvesby means of the backstories they presupposesubsequent to earlier activities. To

challenge this one would have to claim that the conflict stories themselves were created from

whole cloth by early Christians to historicize Jesus view of these particular halakhic issues.

That reshaping occurred should not be doubted; the theory that we are dealing with total creation,

however, raises more questions than it answers.1263

Attacks on Jesus character and background lead to similar implications about his public

reputation. Jesus was likely called a eunuch (cf. Matt 19:12)1264 and a false prophet (cf.

1260
Cf. Sven-Olav Back, Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandment (bo: bo
Akademi University, 1995), 2-13 (for a survey of views); Holmn, Jesus and Jewish Covenant
Thinking, 100-06; Donald A. Hagner, Jesus and the Synoptic Sabbath Controversies, in Bock
and Webb, Key Events, 251-92. Contra Nina L. Collins, Jesus, the Sabbath and the Jewish
Debate: Healing on the Sabbath in the 1st and 2nd Centuries CE (LNTS 474; London; New York:
T & T Clark, 2014), 435-39 (for a summary).
1261
For discussion see Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, 94-96;
Holmn, Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking, 128-57.
1262
Relevant here is Auln, Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research, 55: The cause
for the irritation present among the Jews of Jesus time does not seem to have been his teaching.
Primarily at issue was his behavior, his way of acting. See also Smith, Magician, 23; Lutz
Doering, Schabbat (TSAJ 78; Tbingen: Mohr, 1999), 445.
1263
Cf. Martin Hengel and Roland Deines, E. P. Sanders Common Judaism, Jesus,
and the Pharisees, JTS 46 (1995): 1-70 at 4-7.
1264
Cf. Josef Blinzler, Eisin eunouchoi: Zur Auslegung von Mt 19.12, ZNW 48 (1957):
254-70; Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 182-84; Halvor Moxnes, Lost in Translation: What
Happened to the Eunuchs in Matthew 19:12?, Fourth R 17 (2004): 3-8, 20.
416
 in John 7:12, 25-27, 40 and Deut 13:6),1265 maybe an illegitimate child (John 8:41;

9:29).1266 We do not know if Pharisees or scribes were involved in such ad hominem attacks.

They may not have been. Some Pharisees or scribes probably were involved in the accusation

that Jesus cast out demons by the prince of demons (Mark 3:22-30; Q 11:15-23).1267 It is

common to note that this episode assumes not only the prior exorcistic activity of Jesus, but the

admitted successes of it.1268 The exchange is also considered important because it shows that

Jesus healings and exorcisms were not self-interpreting and could be understood in different

ways. All of that is true. But it should not be missed that to appeal to the power of Beelzebul to

explain the exorcisms of Jesus is not a self-interpreting move either. To the contrary, it is a rather

remarkable accusation when one considers that there was nothing inherently objectionable about

healing or exorcising (as Jesus himself seems to point out in context).1269 So the Beelzebul

accusation must also tell us something about the interpretive perspective of those opposed to

Jesus, just as Q 11:20 (If I by the finger/spirit of God) tells us something about the

Graham N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet Who

1265

Deceived Gods People?, in Green and Turner, Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ, 164-80.
Cf. Bruce Chilton, Jsus, le mamzer (Mt 1.18), NTS 46 (2001): 22-27; Scot
1266

McKnight, Calling Jesus Mamzer, JSHJ 1 (2003): 73-103.

1267
Jesus question by whom do your sons cast them out? (Q 11:19, my italics) would
be an odd thing to ask the crowd or some anonymous objector.
1268
Cf. Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical & Theological
Study (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 266-69, 282.
1269
Cf. Graham H. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 35-54; Meggitt, Jesus and Healing, 20-22; Tony Costa, The
Exorcisms and Healings of Jesus within Classical Culture, in Porter and Pitts, Christian Origins
and Greco-Roman Culture, 113-44. See also Jack Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred:
Meditation of the Divine among Jews in the Greco-Roman Diaspora (Chico: Scholars Press,
1984), 56 (on magicians being associated with synagogues themselves).

417
interpretive perspective of Jesus on his ministry.1270 For to take the exorcisms of Jesus in this

way is to take them in their worst possible light.

What made Jesus worth calling names and attacking in this manner? We can presume it

was not because these opponents, whoever they were, were evil and blinded by hate. And it

probably was not because Jesus himself was just that interesting. What is clear is that these

accusations, while perhaps spoken directly to Jesus on occasion, were intended for others to hear

and take note of. Their illocutionary force is stay away from Jesus.1271 So it is likely that there

was some concern about Jesus repore. In fact, several accusations are aimed not at Jesus alone

but at the company he kept. To call Jesus a sinner and a Samaritan, if John does not mislead

(John 8:48), is not slander of an individual but a group. Helpful here are Bruce Malina and

Jerome Neyrey:

To label a person or group negatively is a social act of retaliation for some alleged
deviance(Epithets) are social weapons. In the hands of influential persons or powerful
groups, they can inflict genuine injury, since they serve to define a person as out of social
place, hence as permanently deviant. While putting a person down may be a joke or a
serious challenge, it need not involve situating that person outside the accepted
boundaries of society. But in a society built on grades of status, degrading terms that stick
almost necessarily lead to collective avoidance, ostracism, and isolation.1272

1270
See here Auln, Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research, 58: The driving out of
evil spirits, to use the expression of the time, was in and of itself no cause for criticism. When,
nonetheless, this activity of Jesus was described a demonically inspired, the charge must have
been based on the fact that his actions and patterns of behavior were interpreted from another
angle.
1271
Dwight D. Sheets, Jesus as Demon Possessed, in McKnight and Modica, Who do
My Opponents Say that I Am?, 27-49 at 33: The function of the (Beelzebul) accusation was to
bring about the eradication of Jesus.
1272
Cf. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 37.

418
 (ii) There is, in addition, the likelihood that Jesus was perceived as a lawbreaker.1273

Jesus practice of table fellowship earned him the reputation of being a friend of tax collectors

and sinners. The view was probably not unique to his learned opponents, but we can be

confident that the phrase originated as an accusation and not as a self-description.1274 But why

was Jesus accused of such a thing? Sanders convincingly eliminated two of the most common

proposals. The problem was not that Jesus was hanging out with the dregs of society, or the

people of the land.1275 Sanders exposed the theological root of such reconstructions, which

caricature Jesus Jewish contemporaries in order to make Jesus stand out as one who uniquely

and offensively extended Gods grace beyond its former limits.1276 Moreover, the issue was

probably not only purity either: eating with the unclean.1277 In the LXX, refers not

1273
For some good insights here see Cadoux, Historic Mission of Jesus, 251-52;
McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 94; Michael F. Bird, Jesus as Lawbreaker, in McKnight and
Modica, Who do My Opponents Say that I Am?, 3-26.
1274
Jeremias, Proclamation of Jesus, 109-11; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 174.
1275
E.g. Jeremias, Proclamation of Jesus, 112. Though, to be fair to Jeremias, he fully
understood that sinners meant one who failed to keep the Law (see 111). He just thought that
its range was broader. See recently Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 264-68 (who resembles
Jeremias here); Craig Blomberg, The Authenticity and Significance of Jesus Table Fellowship
with Sinners, in Bock and Webb, Key Events, 215-50 at 243-44 (the notorious riff-raff of this
world and outcasts of society).
1276
Cf. Jeremias, Proclamation of Jesus, 2 (his message of Gods love for sinnerswas
so offensive to the majority of his contemporaries that it cannot be derived from the thinking
current in his environment); Saunders, Jesus in the Gospels, 206-08; Perrin, Rediscovering the
Teaching, 97; Riches, Transformation of Judaism, 99, 108.
1277
Contra Craig A. Evans, Who Touched Me? Jesus and the Ritually Impure, in
Chilton and Evans, Jesus in Context, 353-76. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 187: Making purity
and table-fellowship the focal points of debate trivializes the charge against Jesus (italics orig.).
Cf. Auln, Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research, 60. However, Sanders has been
challenged, and for good reason it seems to me, on his view that the Pharisees did not eat
ordinary food in a state of ritual purity (see Judaism: Practice and Belief, 437-38). Cf. Hannah
K. Harrington, Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in a State of Ritual Purity? JSJ 26 (1995):
42-55; John C. Poirier, Why Did the Pharisees Wash Their Hands? JSJ 47 (1996): 217-33;
Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity, 194-202; Crossley, Chaos of History, 112-14. I do not find
419
to commoners or impure ones but the wicked ().1278 That is, those who willfully

violated Gods Law and abandoned the covenant. It is probably the same here. Jesus was accused

of fraternizing with the wicked.1279

The offense is still not clear. (N)o one would have objected if Jesus persuaded tax

collectors to leave the ranks of the wicked: everybody else would have benefited. If he were a

successful reformer of dishonest tax collectors, Jesus would not have drawn criticism.1280

Sanderss own proposal, which stems from this correct insight, is not convincing, and has come

under heavy scrutiny.1281 (In brief: that Jesus drew this accusation because he welcomed the

wicked into his fold apart from the normal patterns of repentance.1282) Sanders goes

immediately for Jesus intentions, as is typical in scholarship when the topic is the Law, whereas

Meier, Law and Love, 399-405, convincing in his attempt to dismiss the entirety of the dispute
about handwashing in Mark 7:1-5 as relevant for the life of Jesus, nor does Thomas Kazen,
Issues of Impurity in Early Judaism (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 161.
1278
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 177-78.
1279
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 179 (the charge against him was not that he love the
amme ha-arets, the common people. If there was a conflict, it was about the status of the
wicked [italics orig.]). Cf. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 111; Meier, Mentor, Message,
and Miracles, 149, 211-12; Greg Carey, Sinners: Jesus and His Earliest Followers (Waco:
Baylor University Press, 2009), 7; LaCocque, Jesus the Central Jew, 153-54.
1280
Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 236.
1281
Cf. Dale C. Allison Jr., Jesus and the Covenant: A Response to E. P. Sanders, JSNT
29 (1987): 57-78 at 71; Bruce Chilton, Jesus and the Repentance of E. P. Sanders, TynBul 39
(1988): 1-18; Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 44-45; Crossley, Chaos of History, 106-
11. Recently Carey, Sinners, 27-36, tries to follow Sanders, but he also goes beyond him: for
Sanders, to say Jesus did not require repentance means he did not require people to fulfill the
normal cultic requirements (he is has often been misunderstood on the point). Careys view of
repentance is more moralistic, e.g. His companionship with sinners had no strings attached
(35).
1282
For an attempt to salvage some of Sanderss key insights (which, to my mind, still
struggles to make sense of Mark 1:40-44, as well as Matt 5:23-25), see Tobias Hgerland, Jesus
and the Rites of Repentance, NTS 52 (2006): 166-87.

420
it is much more likely that what we have here is a difference in perception. Jesus sees one thing,

his opponents see another. Jesus, like John, who issued a call for nation-wide repentance in view

of the coming end, probably saw those who harkened to him as the firstfruits of the ingathering

of the exiles, and a fulfillment of prophetic expectation that the end would see the conversion of

the wicked to God.1283 But Jesus opponents saw something different. They saw people who,

whatever their verbal claims or personal allegiances, failed to conform to Gods Law.1284 The

concern here would be a real one. If Jesus call to repentance, to the minds of these opponents,

did not actually work very well in practice, Jesus association with them could easily be taken

as aiding and abetting sin (see 1 Cor 5:11).1285 He would be, from this perspective, a friend of

sinners. One could see his ministry opposed not just to the interests of the Pharisees, but to the

1283
Mark 2:17, if substantially historical, would capture this well: I have come not to
call the righteous but sinners. Cf. Rau and Petersen, Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu, 51 (on the
connection between Jesus message of the coming kingdom and his attempt to inaugurate die
Sammlung des Gottesvolkes). I find my view preferable to the explanation of Dunn, Jesus
Remembered, 532, who makes his Jesus a poster child for the New Perspective: Jesus objected
against boundary-drawing within Israel which treated some Israelites as outside the covenant and
beyond the grace of God. Such attempts to erect internal boundaries within Israel, creating
internal divisions within Israel, were contrary to the will of God. I see Jesus drawing boundaries
all over the place.
1284
I am intrigued by, but ultimately unsure of, the thesis of Rau that the Parable of the
Prodigal Son was an attempt by Jesus, at an early phase in his ministry, to appeal to those who
had taken offense to his fellowship with tax collectors and sinners. See Jesu
Auseinandersetzung mit Pharisern, 5-29. He develops the idea further in Jesus, Freund von
Zllnern und Sndern.
1285
Quotation from Crossley, Chaos of History, 110. Despite Crossleys good point here,
his own view is tainted by the claim that sinners were the rich (e.g. the very people
representative of the economic injustices in [say] Galilee). This is tendentious. See Auln,
Contemporary Historical Research, 66 (One could not find a sign ofpenance among the
sinners with whom Jesus associated); Bond, Historical Jesus, 129 (it might be a matter of
debate as to whether a person was a sinner or not). Note 1 En. 90:25 (seventy shepherds were
judged and found to be sinners), 26 (the blinded sheep were all judged and found to be
sinners).

421
Law of Moses. Interestingly, the early Church itself was concerned to stress that Jesus sinful

company really was moved to repentance, that is, they did not stay as they were before. 1286

Sanderss view is driven by the presupposition that, in order for the opponents of Jesus to

make this statement about sinners, these followers must have actually been, and continued to

be, sinners. I agree that the charge of sinners is serious, and also I agree that, at one time,

they probably were. The tax collectors actually were tax collectors, at least once.1287 But

1286
This is a special concern of Luke, who often changes his source material to make the
point (cf. 3:10-14 [in the preaching of the Baptist]; 5:32 [he adds to Mark 2:17s
I have not come to call the righteous but sinners]; 15:7 [unique to Luke]; 18:9-14 [unique to
Luke]; 19:1-10 [unique to Luke]). Cf. Guy D. Nave, The Role and Function of Repentance in
Luke-Acts (AcBib 4; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). See also John 5:14 (Behold!
You have been made well! Do not continue to sin, lest something worse happen to you); 8:11
(go and sin no more). One thinks of Oscar Wildes prose-poem, The Doer of Good, in The
Poetical Works of Oscar Wilde (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1913), 298-99, in which
Jesus comes upon four people he had formerly healed (the leper, a blind man, Mary Magdalene,
and Lazarus). The leper had become a reveler, the blind man had become lustful, Mary had
become a lawbreaker, and Lazarus now despairs of life. This raises an interesting historical
question.
1287
For discussion see Fritz Herrenbrck, Jesus und die Zllner: historische und
neutestamentlich-exegetische Untersuchgen (WUNT 41; Tbingen: Mohr, 1990); K. S. Krieger,
Die Zllner: Jesu Umgang mit einem verachteten Beruf, BK 52 (1997): 124-30; Keener,
Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 210-11.

422
Sanders collapses reality and perception,1288 which is ironic considering the way he explains

other Jewish polemic in the period.1289 It is a move Sanders often made in his work.1290

The important implication of our discussion for understanding the course of Jesus career

and the development of opposition to him is this: the perception of Jesus as a friend of tax

collectors and sinners is a polemical statement that assumes an offensive message and public

following. The two, in fact, are inextricably conjoined. The offense was not just that Jesus held a

radical theological opinion about sinners and tax collectors in the Kingdom. I do not even

think Jesus own view is important here. The offense is that, aside from what Jesus thought about

the matter, those opposed to him saw that he found a welcome audience among those who had,

in their view, a shaky commitment to Gods covenant with Israel. He had been successful in

On partisan debate and characterization, see Luke Timothy Johnson, The New
1288

Testaments Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic, JBL 108 (1989):
419-441; Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 287; Meier, Companions and Competitors, 338. On
sinners as a term used polemically to castigate rivals in Judaism, see James D. G. Dunn,
Pharisees, Sinners, and Jesus, in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research (eds. James D. G.
Dunn and Scot McKnight; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 463-89 at 475-82; idem, Jesus,
Table-Fellowship, and Qumran, in Charlesworth, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 254-72 at
259. However, I do not think that Dunn overturns Sanderss fundamental insight here, and he
may overplay the rhetorical nature of the description. Note e.g. Mark 2:16: the mention of Jesus
associating with sinners and tax collectors is not a polemical accusation (as appears in Q 7:34),
but a sincere question.
E.g., when the Hodayot condemn opponents of practicing idolatry at their festivals
1289

(1QH 12:11-12) and altering the very Laws of God (1QHa 13:36), they were not literally
a

setting up idols in the sanctuary and redacting Torah scrolls. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 337-
39; idem, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 188.
1290
E.g. Judaism really was a religion of grace, therefore Paul could not have criticized it
for legalism. The Jerusalem priesthood really were not corrupt, therefore Jesus could not have
been opposed to them. Such lines of argument, in my view, are unpersuasive. On the issue of the
priesthood in particular, how does the historian speak of evidence when talking about
corruption? Sanders is right that our records of financial dishonesty and violence refer to the
latter half of the first century CE. But that does not establish that Jesus could not have believed
the priesthood corrupt.

423
recruiting their likes to his cause. We have here a response to a social force, and not just a debate

about a theological idea.1291

If Jesuss activities (e.g. with the company he kept) helped to develop this negative, law-

shunning reputation, then hearing some of Jesus sayings about discipleship and other topics

could have easily bolstered it. Important here is the recognition that not everything Jesus said

about the Law should be regarded as his public teaching about the Law. As mentioned above, the

Gospels preserve a complex mixture of material that touches on the Law as Jesus encountered

various audiences in various contexts.1292 Unfortunately we are often unable to reconstruct the

original audiences of Jesus utterances.1293 We do know, however, that unlike Theudas and the

Egyptian, Jesus did not call all to follow him.1294 Jesus sympathizers can be distinguished

among at least three different levels of commitment: the circle of the twelve, other disciples

1291
I would argue the same regarding the offensive nature of Jesus self-claim.
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 280 (If we give full weight to Jesus extraordinary statements
about the kingdom and about the role of his disciplesand thus, by implication, about himself
we have no trouble seeing that his claims were truly offensive). The statement that ones
response to Jesus decides ones fate on the final judgment is easily dismissed as the statement of
a madmanlittle worth responding toif Jesus were, like the other Jesus ben Ananias, a lone
ranger. If, however, a number of people had actually come to believe that, then there could be a
problem here.
1292
This is true, of course, not just for Jesus views on the Law, but his teaching in
general. Here see Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 28. Already in 1745 Edmund Law, Considerations
on the Theory of Religion, 293, recognized the importance of this consideration for explaining
differences in Jesus teaching, although he overstates his case: This mixture of o various, and
eemingly oppoite qualities (in Jesus teaching)did not proceed from any variation in his
temper, but wholly in that of thoe among whom he conversd. See also George Campbell, The
Four Gospels, Translated from the Greek with Preliminary Dissertations, and Notes Critical and
Explanatory (2nd ed.; Aberdeen: J. Chalmers, 1803 [orig. 1789]), 114 (Jesus teaching appears to
change because the particular and immediate object varies with the subject and occasion).
1293
Cf. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 322; Buchanan, Jesus the King and
His Kingdom, 81; Schrter, From Jesus to the New Testament, 111; Sanders and Davies,
Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 377-44.
1294
As is well known. Cf. e.g. Dibelius, Jesus, 58-60; Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 233-34;
Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 80-82; etc.

424
who followed and supported his ministry, the crowds.1295 The last in the list were the recipients

of Jesus teaching and miracle working activities, but were never expected to leave their

belongings and follow. Jesus, in other words, did not place the same demands on all.

It is noteworthy, then, that a pattern emerges in our sources. What were potentially Jesus

most offensive or radical statements about the Lawor at least have been so read throughout the

history of interpretationwere probably said to disciples. Indeed, much of the public teaching

appears rather conventional.1296 But to whom did Jesus say, let the dead bury their own dead

(Q 9:60)? The Gospels tell us: a potential disciple.1297 Jesus does not intend to establish a

universal rule of behavior for how ones parents should be treated after death. This is important

because, if it were a general rule, this saying could easily be taken as a violation of the fifth

commandment to honor ones father and mother, especially in light of the importance of burial

piety in Second Temple Judaism. The same could be said of the imperative to hate father and

mother (Q 14:26; cf. Gos. Thom. 55; 101). This statement clearly inverts the fifth

commandment to honor your father and mother (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16:

), which must have been rhetorically intentional.1298 But, again, it is

1295
Cf. Meier, Companions and Competitors, 627-30; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 539-41.
1296
Jesus reportedly taught that the Shema and Lev 19:18 are the two greatest
commandments (Mark 12:29-31). He taught that the Decalogue should be kept (Mark 7:9-13, 21-
23; 10:17-19). He said that not one iota will fall from the Law (Q 16:17). He encouraged
righteous living, etc. Cf. Levine, Misunderstood Jew, 17-52.
1297
As is widely recognized, see e.g. Hengel, Charismatic Leader and His Followers, 4
note 4, 73; Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 205-06; M. Cifrak, Lass die toten ihre
Toten begraben (Q 9,60): Das Motiv der Zogerung in der Nachfolge Jesu, Anton 87 (2012): 11-
24.
1298
See Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 62-64; Peter Balla, Did Jesus Break the Fifth
(Fourth) Commandment?, in Holmn and Porter, Handbook for the Study of the Historical
Jesus, 4:2973-3022 at 2969-71. It is interesting to note that a similar subversion of expectations,
and on the same topic of family division, appears in Q 12:51: do you think that I have come to
425
quite unlikely that this was intended as general ethical advice for public consumption. The topic

concerns the breaking up of families, and thus naturally has to do with Jesus call for some to

forsake all and follow him.1299 Jesus himself had apparently shunned his own family in favor of a

new fictive kinship group, which was, of course, controversial (cf. e.g. Mark 3:34-35). Those

who had adhered to him became his brother and sister and mother. It is also possible that

Jesus prohibition of divorce (which Moses allowed, Deut 24:1-4; Jer 3:8) was directed to those

who followed him: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against

her (Mark 10:11-12). Jesus had both men and women in tow (cf. Mark 15:40-41; Luke 8:1-3)

who may have left their families to do so. Thus the temptation to divorce ones former spouse

and join to another would have been real.1300

Not one of these claims is novel. But in other discussions the question of interest to

critics is again Jesus intentions. What was Jesus view of the Law? How did he square this

radical statement with that conservative statement? Such are important lines of inquiry, to be

sure. We should assume that Jesus knew what he was doing.1301 There is no reason to think that

Jesus wanted to overturn the fifth commandment by telling his disciples to hate father and

mother. It is, rather, a rhetorically charged statement aimed to highlight the importance and

urgency of his call. Similar qualifications could be provided for everything listed above. Jesus

cast peace on the earth? No! But rather division! This language of throwing/casting peace is
also associated with family issues in Mek. on Exod 20:25, Sipre to Num. 16.3 (on 5:16-28).
1299
Cf. C. Heil, Was ist Nachfolge Jesu? Antworten von Q, Matthus, Lukasund
Jesus, BK 54 (1999): 80-84; Michael Lattke, The Call to Discipleship and Proselytizing, HTR
92 (1999): 359-62.
1300
For this idea see Allison, Problem of Audience, 43-44.
1301
A few possibilities: see Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, 131;
Merklein, Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft, 93-130; Moo, Jesus and the Authority of the
Mosaic Law, 3-49; Tom Holmn, A Contagious Purity: Jesus Inverse Strategy for
Eschatological Cleanliness, in Charlesworth and Pokorn, Jesus Research, 199-229.

426
did not think himself rejecting Moses in prohibiting divorce, but returning to the original plan of

creation.1302 And so on.

The intentions of Jesus aside, however, it is just as important to consider how such

sayings and their corresponding activities would have been perceived by others, and particularly

by outsiders who would not have had Jesus full perspective on the topic at hand. This is a matter

over which Jesus would not have control. We do not have to guess what happened. Jesus was at

one point accused of being a drunkard and a glutton. The line is straight from Deut 21. The

subtext is revealing:

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother,
who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall
take hold of him ( )and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that
place. They shall say to the elders of his town, This son of ours is stubborn and
rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard () . Then all the
men of the town shall stone him to death. (Deut 21:18-21).

This is a serious charge, on par with the accusation of being a friend of tax collectors and

sinners.1303 As a glutton and drunkard, Jesus is a rebellious son and a breaker of the fifth

commandment. He violates not this or that ordinance of the Pharisees, but the Law of Moses.

The accusation does not square with Jesus own intentions (presumably), but it is a readily

understandable way to make sense of what we have discussed, and is fully understandable within

the parameters of inner-Jewish dispute and polemic of this period.1304

1302
Cf. Hans Joachim Schoeps, Restitutio Principii als kritisches Prinzip der Nova Lex
Jesu, in Aus frhchristlicher Zeit, religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Tbingen: Mohr,
1950), 271-85; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 139-40; Trrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 235-41;
Bilde, Originality of Jesus, 145.
1303
Cf. Howard Clark Kee, Jesus: A Glutton and Drunkard, in Chilton and Evans,
Authenticating the Words of Jesus, 311-32 esp. at 329; Joseph B. Modica, Jesus as Glutton and
Drunkard, in McKnight and Modica, Who do My Opponents Say that I Am?, 50-75.
1304
Cf. e.g. CD 1:18-20: (certain opponents) had sought easy interpretations, choose
illusions, scrutinized loopholes, chose the handsome neck, acquitted the guilty and sentenced the
427
 This situation, if accurate, would present rather striking parallels with the ministry of

Paul. Paul, like Jesus, was soundbiteable. In Romans Paul had to respond to accusations that he

was an antinomian preacher and had said some radical things about grace (see also Acts 21:20-

21). Interestingly, some of these misrepresentations sound a lot like some of Pauls one-liners in

Galatians and even elsewhere in Romans.1305 So the misunderstandings make sense. It is likely

that Jesus had to face a similar problem. The risk of misrepresentation may even have been

greater for Jesus when it came to certain issues, since he left nothing in writing and everything

known about him was passed around by word of mouth. Notice what we have considered so far:

let the dead bury the dead, hate your father and mother, Whoever divorces his wife and

marries another commits adultery. What would people have thought if these sayings, possibly

delivered in secret, found their way to the rooftops? These are not well-crafted positions on

pressing legal issues (while they may have stemmed from such). They are soundbites. And as

such they can be taken in drastically different directions depending upon the context into which

one places them. The original context, we must assume, is not only opaque to us who read the

Gospels now, but also for those who were not followers of Jesus, since all of these were probably

directed to disciples. Consider, in addition, the following:

just, violated the covenant, broke the precept Of course, these opponents, perhaps Pharisees,
would not see matters in this way, but this take is still understandable as a reaction to their
Halacha. See also T. Levi 16:2; T. Mos. 7:3-10.
1305
Cf. Isaac J. Canales, Pauls Accusers in Romans 3:8 and 6:1, EvQ 57 (1985): 237-
45; F. Stanley Jones, Freiheit in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus: eine historische,
exegetische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie (GTA 34; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1987), 111, 116-17; Peter Stuhlmacher, The Purpose of Romans, in The Romans Debate (ed.
Karl P. Donfried; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 231-42 esp. at 239-40; James D. G. Dunn, Was
Paul Against the Law? The Law in Galatians and Romans: A Test-Case of Text in Context, in
Texts and Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (eds. Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm;
Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 455-75.

428
 the Law and the Prophets were proclaimed/prophesied until John (Luke 16:16;
Matt 11:13);

there is nothing outside of a person going into him that is able to defile him, but
the things which come out from a person are the things that defile the person
(Mark 7:15);

Sabbath was made on account of the man, not the man on account of the
Sabbath (Mark 2:27);

tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you (chief
priests and scribes) do (Matt 21:32).

These sayings are similar in that a slight variation here, a minor difference in context there, could

create a totally new meaning.1306 In fact, that is exactly what has happened. The Evangelists

disagree on what to make of them, each molding each saying to correspond to his own vision for

Jesus person and task. For instance: Matthew placed Q 16:16 in an eschatological context so as

to clarify that John the Baptist is Elijah who is to come, whereas Luke had it express the

uniqueness of the kingdom message.1307 Mark understood 7:15 to mean that Jesus declared all

foods clean, whereas Matthew took it to be far less dramatic and still within the handwashing

and purity concerns that began the conflict (Matt 15:11).1308 Critics have typically diagnosed

these differences as a problem,1309 and regarded our struggle to get at the ipsissimia verba Jesu

For insightful reflection on this issue, see David E. Aune, Oral Tradition and the
1306

Aphorisms of Jesus, Jesus, Gospel Tradition and Paul, 256-302.

On Q 16:16-18 see Loader, Jesus Attitude toward the Law, 337-39; Simon J. Joseph,
1307

For Heaven and Earth to Pass Away? Reexamining Q 16,16-18, Eschatology, and the Law,
ZNW 105 (2014): 169-88.
1308
See here Jan Lambrecht, Jesus and the Law: An Investigation of Mk 7, 1-23, ETL
53 (1977): 24-79, who in fact states on 77 that Jesus was in reality both anti-Halachah and anti-
Torah). Cf. Helmut Merkel, Markus 7.15: das Jesuswort ber die innere Verunreinigung,
ZRGG 20 (1968): 340-63 (a survey of views at 341-50); Charles E. Carlston, The Things that
Defile (Mark VII.15) and the Law in Matthew and Mark, NTS 15 (1968-69): 75-96.
1309
See Meier, Law and Love, 9. See also Heikki Risnen, Jesus and the Food Laws:
Reflections on Mark 7:15, JSNT 16 (1982): 79-100.

429
as a barrier to historical reconstruction. On one level that is true, if ones interests are solely the

intentions of Jesus. To my mind we have little hope of knowing what Jesus actually meant by

several of these sayings, if they even go back to him. But on another level, our inability to know

exactly what Jesus said, and then what he may have meant, probably tells us something

important about the ministry of Jesus. For the plight cannot be unique to us. The difficulty

probably characterized the reception of such sayings from the beginning.

There is another parallel with Paul that has to do with opposition. Paul was a not

controversial figure in his time because he was the only one casting grace into a sea of legalism.

Paul was controversial because he was having success among the Gentiles by not requiring them

to adopt the sign of Abrahams covenant, circumcision, and other distinctive markers of Jewish

identity. Paul was controversial, then, because the expansion of his ministry was thought to entail

the spread of an anti-Torah message.1310 On the Torah Pauls views are different than Jesus, to

be sure, as their ministerial settings and goals were literally miles apart. But the opposition to

Jesus is best explained on similar grounds: in the context of a wholly inner-Jewish dispute, some

could view the spread of Jesus message as a challenge to the authority of the Torah.1311 The

Gospels, of course, have framed opposition to Jesus from the Pharisees in a highly negative

manner. They even scheme his death (Mark 3:6). The Gospel authors think they know the

1310
A challenge to this view would be the recent article by Paula Fredriksen, Why
Should a Law-Free Mission Mean a Law-Free Apostle?, JBL 134 (2015): 637-50, which
makes several insightful arguments concerning Pauls own judaizing of the Gentiles. But her
assumption that Paul suffered beatings in synagogues because he was requiring too much of
Gentiles is problematic, and seems to be overly reliant on a particular sketch of Judaism in the
Greco-Roman world. More compelling here is Levine, Misunderstood Jew, 69-72, 78-82.
1311
Cf. Klausners take on the matter in Jesus of Nazareth, 276: The people flocked
after the Pharisaic Rabbi whose parables were so attractive and who did not insist that men
observe all the laws in every detail. Here was a Rabbi whose yoke was easy and whose burden
was light.

430
motives of those opposed to Jesus, which are not noble (e.g. Mark 2:6-7; 3:5 [

]; 8:11 []; 12:13 [ ]; 15:10 [ of the

chief priests]). Here the Evangelists mislead us.1312 But if we put the controversy into the

narrative advanced here, there is nothing inherently suspicious about Galilean sages seeking

ways to oppose Jesus publically.1313 Sanders wrote We can hardly imagine the Pharisees as

policing Galilee to see whether or not an otherwise upright man ate with sinners.1314 That is a

rhetorically powerful statement that is, on further thought, tendentious. Pharisees, we may

presume, cared for the Law and treasured the covenant. Were they not doing Gods good work

by opposing a man who, from their perspective, had broken up families, fraternized with the

wicked, and presumably said other offensive things about the Torah?1315

To close: the fundamental point of this Appendix is that there must have been some

reason that Jesus was worth paying attention to and taking the effort to oppose. It is a good

hypothesis that Jesus was perceived by some to be a lawbreaker, and it was alarming that a

number of people were sympathizing with him. To my mind, that combination offers a better

explanation of the extant evidence than other proposals. The upshot is a reconstruction that
1312
Cf. Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics, 154.
1313
On plucking grain on the Sabbath, Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 226, points to
Bultmann who observed that the passage represents a Christian response to Jewish critics.
When Sanders says Bultmann observed, he means Bultmann asserted.
1314
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 178, see also 265 (Pharisees did not organize
themselves into groups to spend their Sabbaths in Galilean cornfields in the hope of catching
someone transgressing). He is followed by Meier, Law and Love, 275-75. On Pharisees in the
Galilee see Sean Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.
(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), 305-34; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 306-
08; James F. Strange, Archaeology and the Pharisees, in Neusner and Chilton, Quest of the
Historical Pharisees, 237-54. Important for this debate is Josephus, Life 191-93, 197.
1315
Cf. rightly Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 568; Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 17. This is not
to deny that the controversy stories in the Synoptic tradition are, at least in some respect,
idealized scenes.

431
sounds a lot like the plotlines of the old Lives of Jesus. Not only do we have early success,

growing opposition, we have growing opposition that is, some sense, because of that earlier

success. We have, one could say, a response to Jesus Galilean spring. Moreover, the activities

of Jesus that seem to have contributed to such controversy probably characterized his early

activities in Capernaum, as noted above: leaving his family, calling disciples, and gaining an

audience from tax collectors and sinners. A narrative starts to emerge. We cannot, of course,

like the 19th-century critics, stand inside this development and chart it from within in detail. We

have to look at the outcome and work backwards to a probable cause, as do historians with the

crucifixion of Jesus and many other issues in the study of Christian origins.

432
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Lyman. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life and Teachings. New York: Harper & Brothers,
1869.
Adams, Marilyn McCord. What Sort of Human Nature? Medieval Philosophy and the
Systematics of Christology. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1999.
dna, Jostein. Jesu Stellung zum Temple. WUNT 119. Tbingen: Mohr, 2000.
Albertz, Martin. Die synoptischen Streitgesprche. Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1921.
Alexander, J. J. G. and M. T. Gibson, eds. Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented
to Richard William Hunt. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.
Allen, Michael R. The Christs Faith: A Dogmatic Account. London; New York: T & T Clark,
2009.
Allison, Dale C., Jr. A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology. JBL 113 (1994): 651-68.
________. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, History. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.
________. The Continuity Between John and Jesus. JSHJ 1 (2003): 6-27.
________. It Dont Come Easy: A History of Disillusionment Pages 186-199 in Jesus,
Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity. Edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne.
London; New York: T & T Clark, 2012.
________. Forgetting the Past. DRev 120 (2002): 255-70.
________. The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
________. How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity. Pages 3-30 in volume
1 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmn and Stanley
E. Porter. 4 volumes. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.
________. The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International,
2000.
________. Jesus and the Covenant: A Response to E. P. Sanders. JSNT 29 (1987): 57-78.

433
________. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1998.
________. The Jesus Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997.
________. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
________. Q 12:51-53 and Mark 9:11-13 and the Messianic Woes. Pages 289-310 in
Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Boston;
Leiden: Brill, 2002.
________. Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters. London;
New York: T & T Clark, 2005.
________. Studies in Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Revised edition. New York: Basic Books, 2011
(orig. 1981).
Anderson, Abraham. The Treatise of the Three Imposters and the Problem of the Enlightenment.
Lanham et al.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997.
Anderson, Charles C. Critical Quests of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.
Anderson, Paul N. The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations
Reconsidered. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2006.
Andrews, Samuel J. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth: Considered in its Historical,
Chronological, and Geographical Relations. New York: Charles Scribner, 1863.
Aquinas, Thomas. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels Collected Out of the Works
of the Fathers. Translated by John Henry Newman. 1841. 4 Volumes. Repr.,
Southampton: Saint Austin Press, 1997.
Arnal, William E. Jesus and the Village Scribes. Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
Aune, David E. Jesus, Gospel Tradition and Paul in the Context of Jewish and Greco-Roman
Antiquity. WUNT 303. Tbingen: Mohr, 2013.
________. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987.
Aune, David E. and Eric Stuart. From the Idealized Past to the Imaginary Future:
Eschatological Restoration in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Pages 147-77 in
Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M.
Scott. Leiden; Boston; Kln: Brill, 2001.
Aus, Roger David. The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus, and the Death, Burial, and
Translation of Moses in Judaic Tradition. Lanham: University Press of America, 2008.

434
________. Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background of Mark 6:30-44 par.
and John 6:1-15. Lanham: University Press of America, 2010.
Baarda, Tjitze. : Factors in the Harmonization of the Gospels,
Especially in the Diatessaron of Tatian. Pages 133-54 in Gospel Traditions in the
Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text and Transmission. Edited by W. L. Petersen.
Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 3. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1989.
Baasland, Ernst. Fourth Quest? What Did Jesus Really Want? Pages 31-56 in volume 1 of
Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmn and Stanley E.
Porter. 4 volumes. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.
Back, Sven-Olav. Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandment. bo: bo Akademi
University, 1995.
Backhaus, Knut. Echoes from the Wilderness: The Historical John the Baptist. Pages 1747-86
in volume 2 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmn
and Stanley E. Porter. 4 volumes. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.
________, Die Jngerkreise des Tufers Johannes: Eine Studie zu den
religionsgeschichtlichen Ursprngen des Christentums. PTS 19. Paderborn: Schningh,
1991.
Bacon, Benjamin W. The Story of Jesus and the Beginnings of the Church. New York;
London: Century Co., 1927.
Bahrdt, Karl Friedrich. Ausfhrung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. In Briefen an Wahrheit suchende
Leser. 11 volumes. Berlin: August Mylius, 1784-1792.
Baird, William. History of New Testament Research. 3 volumes. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1992-2013.
Balla, Peter. Did Jesus Break the Fifth (Fourth) Commandment? Pages 2973-3022 in
Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmn and Stanley E.
Porter. 4 volumes. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.
Bammel, Ernst. The Revolution Theory from Reimarus to Brandon, and The Feeding of the
Multitude. Pages 11-68 and 211-40 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst
Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Banks, Robert. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1975.
Barnett, Paul W. Finding the Historical Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
________. The Jewish Sign ProphetsA.D. 40-70Their Intentions and Origin. NTS 27
(1981): 679-697.

435
________. Who were the Biastai? RTR 36 (1977): 65-70.
Barraclough, Geoffrey. History in a Changing World. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955.
Barrett, C. K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. London: SPCK, 1967.
Bartholom, Phillip F. The Johannine Discourses and the Teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics.
Tbingen: Francke, 2012.
Bartlett, John R. What has Archaeology to do with the Bibleor Vice Versa? Pages 1-19 in
Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John R. Bartlett. London: Routledge,
1997.
Barton, John. Biblical Criticism and the Harmonization of Texts. Princeton Seminary Bulletin
26 (2005): 144-56.
Bass, Clarence B. Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical
Implications. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.
Batdorf, Irvin W. Interpreting Jesus since Bultmann: Selected Paradigms and Their
Hermeneutic Matrix. Pages 187-215 in Society of Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar
Papers. Edited by Kent Harold Richards. SBLSPS 23. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985.
Bathrellos, Demetrois. The Byzantine Christ: Person, Nature, and Will in the Christology of
Saint Maximus the Confessor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Battenhouse, Henry. Christ in the Gospels: An Introduction to his Life and its Meaning. New
York: Ronald Press, 1952.
Bauckham, Richard. The Family of Jesus. Pages 103-26 in Jesus among Friends and Enemies:
A Historical and Literary Introduction to Jesus in the Gospels. Edited by Chris Keith and
Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.
________. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand
Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006.
________. Kergymatic Summaries in the Speeches of Acts. Pages 185-217 in History,
Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts. Edited by Ben Witherington III. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
________. The Messianic Interpretation of Isa. 10:34 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 Baruch and the
Preaching of John the Baptist. DSD 2 (1995): 202-16.
Baum, J. C. Versuch ber das Nationalreich Christi. Translated by F. G. C. Rtz from Dutch.
Gttingen: Boiegel, 1783.
Bauman, Edward W. The Life and Teachings of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

436
Baur, Ferdinand Christian. The Church History of the First Three Centuries. Translated by Allan
Menzies. 2 volumes. 3rd edition. London; Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1878 (orig.
1853).
Beadle, Richard and A. J. Piper, eds. New Science Out of Old Books: Studies in Manuscripts and
Early Printed Books in Honour of A. I. Doyle. Aldershot: Scolar, 1995.
Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.
________. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Exeter; Paternoster, 1986.
Becker, Eve-Marie. Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie. WUNT 194.
Tbingen: Mohr, 2006.
________. Die markinischen Summarien-ein literarischer und theologischer Schlssel zu
Markus 1-6. NTS 56 (2010): 452-74.
________. Jesus and Capernaum in the Apostolic Age: Balancing Sources and Their Evidence.
Pages 113-40 in The Mission of Jesus: Second Nordic Symposium on the Historical
Jesus, Lund, 7-10 October 2012. Edited by Samuel Byrskog and Tobias Hgerland.
WUNT 391. Tbingen: Mohr, 2015.
Becker, Jrgen. Endzeitliche Volkermission und antiochenische Christologie. Pages 1-22 in
Eschatologie und Schpfung: Festschrift fr Erich Grsser zum siebzigsten Geburtsta.
Edited by Martin Evang, Helmut Merklein, and Michael Wolter. BZNW 89. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1997.
________. Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by James E. Crouch. New York; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1998 (orig. 1996).
Beilby, James, and Paul R. Eddy, eds. The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2009.
________. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006.
Beker, Johan Christiaan. Heirs of Paul: Pauls Legacy in the New Testament and in the Church
Today. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Bell, Richard. The Qurn: Translated, with a Critical Re-arrangement of the Surahs. 2 volumes.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1937-39.
Bengel, John. Gnomon Novi Testament. 2nd edition. Tbingen: Schrammii, 1750.
________. Richtige Harmonie der vier Evangelisten: da die Geschichten, Werke und Reden
Jesu Christi unsers Herrn, in ihrer geziemenden naturlichen Ordnung. 3rd edition.
Tubingen: Christoph Heinrich Berger, 1766.
Bengel, John (with M. E. Bengel and J. C. F. Steudel). Gnomon of the New Testament. 5
volumes. Translated by James Bandinel et al. 3rd edition. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1858.

437
Bentley, Jerry H. Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.
Berg, Herbert. Context: Muammad. Pages 187-204 in The Blackwell Companion to the
Qurn. Edited by Andrew Rippin. Malden: Blackwell, 2006.
Berg, Shane. Religious Epistemology and the History of the Dead Sea Scrolls Community.
Pages 333-49 in The Other in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J.
Collins. Edited by Daniel C. Harlow et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.
Berger, David. The Jewish-Christian Debate in the Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the
Niaon Vetus with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979.
Berger, Klaus. Exegese des Neuen Testaments: neue Wege vom Text zur Auslegung. Heidelberg:
Quelle and Meyer, 1977.
________. Kriterien fur echte Jesuworte? ZNT 1 (1998): 52-58.
Bermejo Rubio, Fernando. The Fiction of the Three Quests: An Argument for Dismantling a
Dubious Historiographical Paradigm. JSHJ 7 (2009): 211-53.
________. Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance. JSHJ 12 (2014): 1-105.
Best, Ernest. Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.
Bettenson, Henry, ed. and trans. The Later Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of
the Fathers from St. Cyril of Jerusalem to St. Leo the Great. London; New York;
Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1970.
Betz, Otto. Jesus Gospel of the Kingdom, Pages 53-74 in The Gospel and the Gospels. Edited
by Peter Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Beyschlag, Willibald. Das Leben Jesu. 2 volumes. 3rd edition. Halle: Eugen Strien, 1893 (orig.
1885).
________. New Testament Theology, or, Historical Account of the Teaching of Jesus and of
Primitive Christianity According to the New Testament Sources. Translated by Neil
Buchanan. 2 volumes. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1895 (orig. 1891).
Bilde, Per. Can it be Justified to Talk about Scholarly Progress in the History of Modern Jesus
Research since Reimarus? Pages 5-24 in The Mission of Jesus: Second Nordic
Symposium on the Historical Jesus, Lund, 7-10 October 2012. Edited by Samuel Byrskog
and Tobias Hgerland. WUNT 391. Tbingen: Mohr, 2015.
________. The Originality of Jesus: A Critical Discussion and Comparative Attempt. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.

438
Birch, Jonathan. The Road to Reimarus: Origins of the Quest of the Historical Jesus. Pages 19-
47 in Holy Land as Homeland? Edited by Keith W. Whitelam. Social World of Biblical
Antiquity 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011.

Bird, Michael F. Jesus as Lawbreaker. Pages 3-26 in Who do My Opponents Say that I Am?:
An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus. Edited by Scot
McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2008.

Black, C. Clifton. Mark. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2011.

Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd edition. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1967 (orig. 1946).

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late
Antiquity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Blinzler, Josef. Eisin eunouchoi: Zur Auslegung von Mt 19.12. ZNW 48 (1957): 254-70.

Blomberg, Craig. The Authenticity and Significance of Jesus Table Fellowship with Sinners,
Pages 215-50 in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Darrell L. Bock
and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247. Tbingen: Mohr, 2009.
________. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. 2nd edition. Nottingham: Apollos;
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007.
Blount, Charles. Great is Diana of the Ephesians, or, The Original of Idolatry Together with the
Politick Institution of the Gentiles Sacrifices. London: s.n., 1680.
Boccaccini, Gabriele. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran
and Enochic Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Bock, Darrell L. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology.
JSNTSup 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.
Bockmuehl, Markus. The Making of Gospel Commentaries. Pages 274-95 in The Written
Gospel. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Bodenstedt, Mary Immaculate. The Vita Christi of Ludolphus the Carthusian. Washington D.C.:
The Catholic University of America Press, 1944.
Bond, Helen K. The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed. London; New York: T & T
Clark, 2012.
Bonsirven, Joseph. Le rgne de Dieu. Paris: ditions Montaigne, 1957.
Booth, R. P. Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7.
JSNTSup 13. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.

439
Borg, Marcus. Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. 2nd edition.
Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998.
________. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary.
San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006.
________. A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Holiness. San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1991.
Boring, M. Eugene. The Continuing Voice of Jesus. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
1991.
Bornkamm, Gnther. Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James
M. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, 1960 (orig. 1956).
Borsch, Frederick Houk. The Son of Man in Myth and History. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1967.
Bosworth, Edward. The Life and Teachings of Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1924.
Bousset, Wilhelm. Jesus. Edited by W. D. Morrison. Translated by Janet Penrose Trevelyan.
New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1906 (orig. 1904).
Bousset, Wilhelm. Jesu Predigt im ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1892.
Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots. Manchester: Manchester University, 1967.
Breisach, Ernst. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. 3nd edition. Chicago; London:
University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Bristol, Lyle O. New Testament Textual Criticism in the Eighteenth Century. JBL 69 (1950):
101-12.
van den Broek, Roelof. On the Life and Passion of Christ: A Coptic Apocryphon. Leiden;
Boston: Brill, 2013.
Brooke, George J. Shared Exegetical Traditions between the Scrolls and the New Testament.
Pages 565-91 in Oxford Handbook to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim
and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Brown, Colin. Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 1778-1860. SHT 1. Durham: Labyrinth,
1985.
________. What Was John the Baptist Doing? BBR 7 (1997): 37-50.
Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

440
________. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the
Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. AYBRL. 2 volumes. New York: Doubleday,
1994.
________. The Gospel According to John. AB 29. 2 volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1966-70.
________. How Much did Jesus Know?A Survey of the Biblical Evidence. CBQ 29 (1967):
315-45.
________. Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1997.
Brown, Sherri. The Priests and Levites: Identity and Politics in the Search for a Messiah Pages
110-15 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy
Figures in John. Edited by Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmerman.
WUNT 314. Tbingen: Mohr, 2013.
Brown, Stewart J., and Timothy Tackett, eds. Enlightenment, Reawakening and Revolution
1660-1815. Volume 7 of The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
Bryan, Steven M. Jesus and Israels Traditions of Judgment and Restoration. SNTSMS 117.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Buchanan, George Wesley. The Goal of Jesus and His Disciples. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
________. Isaianic Midrash and the Exodus. Pages 89-109 in The Function of Scripture in
Early Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders.
JSSNTS 154. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
________. Jesus the King and His Kingdom. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1984.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Die Frage nach der Echtheit von Mt 16, 17-19. TBl 20 (1941): 265-79.
________. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1963 (orig. 1921).
________. Jesus. Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1929.
________. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1951 (orig. 1948).
________. What the Saying Source Reveals about the Early Church. Pages 23-35 in The Shape
of Q: Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel. Edited by John Kloppenborg. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1994.
Bunge, Marcia. The Restless Reader: Johann Gottfried Herders Interpretations of the New
Testament. PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1986.
Burger, Christoph, August den Hollander, and Ulrich Schmid, eds. Evangelienharmonien des
Mittelalters. STAR 9. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2004.

441
Burgess, Isaac Bronson. The Life of Christ. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908.
Burke, Peter. The Renaissance Sense of the Past. London: Edward Arnold, 1969.
Burkett, Delbert, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Jesus. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Burkitt, F. C. Jesus Christ: An Historical Outline. London: Blackie & Son, 1932.
Burkitt, William. Expository Notes, with Practical Observations upon the New Testament of Our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. New Haven: Abel Morse, 1794.
Burridge, Richard A. What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. 2nd
edition. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004.
Bury, Arthur. The Naked Gospel. London: s.n., 1690.
Busch, Peter, et al. Er predigte in ihren Drfern und Synagogen Die archologische
Forschung am See Gennesaret und die frhe Jesusbewegung. Pages 153-63 in Leben am
See Gennesaret: Kulturgeschichtliche Entdeckungen in einer biblischen Region. Edited
by Gabriele Fassbeck et al. Mainz: von Zabern, 2003.
Bushell, T. L. The Sage of Salisbury: Thomas Chubb 1679-1747. New York: Philosophical
Library, 1967.
Buss, Martin J. Biblical Form Criticism in its Context. JSOTSup 274. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1999.
Byrskog, Samuel. The Transmission of the Jesus Tradition. Pages 1465-94 in volume 2 of
Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmn and Stanley E.
Porter. 4 volumes. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.
Cadbury, Henry J. The Peril of Modernizing Jesus. London: SPCK, 1937.
________. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. HTS 6. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1920.
Cadoux, Cecil J. The Historic Mission of Jesus. London and Redhill: Lutterworth Press, 1941.
Caine, Hall. Life of Christ. New York: Doubleday, 1938.
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. Translated by
John Owen. Calvins Commentaries 22. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009.
________. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. Translated by William Pringle. 3
volumes. Calvins Commentaries 16, 17. Grand Rapids; Baker, 2009.
________. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Fort
Lewis Battles. 2 volumes. LCC 20, 21. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.

442
Cameron, P. S. Violence and the Kingdom: The Interpretation of Matthew 11:12. Bern et al.:
Peter Lang, 1984.
Cameron, Ron, and Merrill P. Miller, eds. Redescribing Christian Origins. SBLSymS 28.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.
Campbell, Archibald. The Authenticity of the Gospel-History Justified: and the Truth of the
Christian Revelation Demonstrated. 2 volumes. Edinburgh: Hamilton, Balfour, and Neill,
1759.
Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Re-Reading of Justification in
Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
________.The Story of Jesus in Romans and Galatians. Pages 97-124 in Narrative
Dynamics in Paul. Edited by Bruce W. Longenecker. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2002.
Campbell, George. The Four Gospels, Translated from the Greek with Preliminary
Dissertations, and Notes Critical and Explanatory. 2nd edition. Aberdeen: J. Chalmers,
1803 (orig. 1789).
Campbell, R.J. The Life of Christ. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1922.
Canales, Isaac J. Pauls Accusers in Romans 3:8 and 6:1. EvQ 57 (1985): 237-45.
Capps, Donald. Beyond Schweitzer and the Psychiatrists: Jesus as Fictive Personality. Pages
399-435 in Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions. Edited by James H.
Charlesworth and Brian Rhea. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.
Carlston, Charles E. Proverbs, Maxims, and the Historical Jesus. JBL 99 (1980): 87-105.
________. The Things that Defile (Mark VII.15) and the Law in Matthew and Mark. NTS 15
(1968-69): 75-96.
Carmody, James M. and Thomas E. Clarke. Word and Redeemer: Christology in the Fathers.
Glen Rock: Paulist Press, 1966.
Carter, Warren. The Crowds in Matthews Gospel, CBQ 55 (1993): 54-67.
Case, Shirley Jackson. Jesus through the Centuries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1932.
________. The Life of Jesus During the Last Quarter-Century. JR 5 (1925): 561-75.
Casey, Maurice. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
SNTSMS 122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
________. Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historians Account of His Life and
Teaching. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2010.

443
Catchpole, David. On Doing Violence to the Kingdom. JTSA 25 (1978): 50-61.
________. The Mission Charge in Q. Semeia 55 (1991): 147-74.
________. The Quest for Q. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993.
Cavallo, Guglielmo and Roger Chartier, eds. A History of Reading in the West. Translated by
Lydia G. Cochrane. Amherst; Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.
Cave, Sydney. The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. New York; Charles Scribners Sons,
1925.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 volumes. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.
Charlesworth, James H. The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
2008.
________. Jesus within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988.
Charlesworth, James H., ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
________. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1987.
Chartier, Roger. The Order of Books: Readers, Authors and Libraries in Europe Between the
Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Translated by Lydia G. Cochrane; Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1994.
Chazan, Robert. Barcelona and Beyond: The Disputation of 1263 and Its Aftermath. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1992.
Chemnitz, Martin, Polycarp Leyser, and John Gerhard. The Harmony of the Four Evangelists,
Volume One, Book One. Translated by Richard J. Dinda. Malone: Center for the Study of
Lutheran Orthodoxy, 2009.
Chiesa, Paolo, Lucia Pinelli, and Fondazione E. Franceschini, eds. Gli autografi medievali:
problemi paleografici e filologici. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull'alto Medioevo,
1994.
Chilton, Bruce. A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His
Time. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984.
________. The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenance of the Isaiah Targum. JSOTSup
23. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982.
________. God in Strength: Jesus Announcement of the Kingdom. SNTSU 1. Freistadt: Plchl,
1979.
________. Jsus, le mamzer (Mt 1.18). NTS 46 (2001): 22-27.

444
________. Jesus and the Repentance of E. P. Sanders. TynBul 39 (1988): 1-18.
________. The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice.
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.
Chubb, Thomas. The True Gospel of Jesus Christ Asserted. London: Thomas Cox, 1738.
Clark, Elizabeth A. and Diane F. Hatch. The Golden Bough, The Oaken Cross: The Virgilian
Centro of Faltonia Betitia Proba. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981.
Clements, Ronald E. One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1976.
Clodd, Edward. Jesus of Nazareth: Embracing a Sketch of Jewish History to the Time of His
Birth. London: C. Kegan Paul, 1880.
Colani, Timothe. Jsus-Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps. Strasbourg: Truettel
and Wurtz, 1864.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. Genre and the Gospels. JR 75 (1995): 239-46.
________. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Collins, Anthony. A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion. London:
s.n., 1724.
Collins, John J. Wisdom, Apocalypticism, and Generic Compatibility. Pages 165-85 in In
Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie. Edited by L. G. Perdue, B. B.
Scott, and W. J. Wiseman. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.
Collins, Nina L. Jesus, the Sabbath and the Jewish Debate: Healing on the Sabbath in the 1st and
2nd Centuries CE. LNTS 474. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2014.
Coloe, Mary L. Gentiles in the Gospel of John: Narrative PossibilitiesJohn 12:12-43. Pages
209-23 in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by
David C. Sim and James S. McLaren. LNTS 499. London; New York: T & T Clark,
2013.
Comber, Joseph. The Composition and Literary Characteristics of Matt 11:20-24. CBQ 39
(1977): 497-514.
Conway, Charles Abbott. The Vita Christi of Ludolph of Saxony and Late Medieval Devotion
Centered on the Incarnation: A Descriptive Analysis. Salzburg: Institut fur Englische
Sprache und Literatur, 1976.
Conyers, A. J. The End: What Jesus Really Said about the Last Things. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1995.
Conzelmann, Hans. Jesus. Edited by John Reumann. Translated by J. Raymond Lord.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973 (orig. 1959).

445
_______. The Theology of St. Luke. Translated by Geoffrey Buswell. New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1960 (orig. 1954).
Cook, J. G. Some Hellenistic Responses to the Gospels and Gospel Traditions. ZNW 84
(1993): 233-54.
Cook, Michael J. The Distribution of Jewish Leaders in the Synoptic Gospels: Why Wariness is
Warranted. Pages 61-80 in Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and
Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship. Edited by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le
Donne, and Jacob Neusner. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.
Cook, L. Stephen. On the Question of the Cessation of Prophecy in Ancient Judaism. WUNT
145. Tbingen: Mohr, 2011.
Costa, Tony. The Exorcisms and Healings of Jesus within Classical Culture. Pages 113-44 in
Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New
Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013.
Cradock, Samuel. The Harmony of the Four Evangelists, and the Text Methodizd According to
the Order and Series of Times, in which the Several Things by them Mentioned, were
Transacted. London: s.n., 1668.
Craig, William Lane. The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist
Controversy. Lewiston: Queenston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1985.
Crell, Paul. Monotessaron historiae evangelicae. Wittenberg: s.n., 1566.
Crisp, Oliver D. Revisioning Christology: Theology in the Reformed Tradition. Farnham;
Burlington: Ashgate, 2011.
Croatto, J. Severino. Jesus, Prophet like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher like Moses in Luke-Acts.
JBL 124 (2005): 451-65.
Cromhout, Markus. Jesus and Identity: Reconstructing Judean Ethnicity in Q. Eugene: Cascade
Books, 2007.
Crook, Zeba. Honor, Shame, and Social Status Revisited. JBL 128 (2009): 591-611.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant.
San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991.
________. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994.
________. Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the
Death of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995.
Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan Reed. Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the
Texts. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.

446
Crossley, James. Jesus and the Chaos of History: Redirecting the Life of the Historical Jesus.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
________. Johns Gospel and the Historical Jesus: An Assessment of Recent Trends and
Defense of a Traditional View. Pages 163-84 in Is This Not the Carpenter? The
Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus. Edited by Thomas L. Thompson and
Thomas S. Verenna. Durham: Acumen, 2012.
________. The Semitic Background to Repentance in the Teaching of John the Baptist and
Jesus. JSHJ 2 (2004): 138-57.
________. Writing about the Historical Jesus: Historical Explanation and the Big Why
Questions, or Antiquarian Empiricism and Victorian Tomes? JSHJ 7 (2009): 63-90.
Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1959.
________. Peter: DiscipleApostleMartyr. Translated by Floyd V. Filson. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1953 (orig. 1952).
Culpepper, R. Alan. The Gospel of Luke. NIB 9. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.
Cuypers, Michel. The Composition of the Quran: Rhetorical Analysis. Translated by Jerry Ryan.
London et al.: Bloomsbury, 2015.
Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on John. Volume 1. Ancient Christian Texts. Edited by Joel
C. Elowsky. Translated by David R. Maxwell. Grand Rapids: InterVarsity, 2013.
Dahl, Nils A. The Parables of Growth. ST 5 (1951): 132-65.
Daniels, Richard W. The Christology of John Owen. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2004.
Danker, F. W. Luke 16.16an Opposition Logion. JBL 77 (1958): 231-243.
Darby, John Nelson. The Collected Writings of J.N. Darby. Edited by William Kelly. 34
volumes. 2nd edition. London: G.M. Morrish, n.d.
Davies, W. D. Christian Origins and Judaism. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962.
________. The Gospel and the Land. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.
Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to Saint Matthew. 3 volumes. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988-97.
Dawe, Donald G. The Form of a Servant: A Historical Analysis of the Kenotic Motif.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.
Dawes, Gregory. The Historical Jesus Question: The Challenge of History to Religious
Authority. Louisville et al.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

447
Dawson, William J. The Life of Christ. Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs & Co., 1901.
DeConick, April. Rediscovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its
Growth. LNTS 287. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007.
De Jonge, Henk J. The Loss of Faith in the Historicity of the Gospels: Hermann S. Reimarus on
John and the Synoptics. Pages 409-21 in John and the Synoptics. Edited by Adelbert
Denaux. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.
Delclaux, Adrien. Deux tmoignages de Papias sur la composition de Marc. NTS 27 (1981):
401-11.
Delling, Gerhard. Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus. Pages 109-21 in Josephus-Studien:
Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament Otto
Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Edited by Otto Betz et. al. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974.
den Heyer, Cees. Historic Jesuses. Pages 1079-1101 in volume 2 of Handbook for the Study of
the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmn and Stanley E. Porter. 4 volumes. Leiden;
Boston: Brill, 2011.
Denton, Donald L. Historiography and Hermeneutics in Jesus Studies: An Examination of the
Work of John Dominic Crossan and Ben F. Meyer. JSNTSup 262. London; New York: T
& T Clark, 2004.
Derrenbacker, Robert A., Jr., Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006.
Descamps, Albert. Aux origins du ministre: La Pense de Jesus. RTL 2 (1971): 3-45.
________. Rflexions sur leschatologie de Jsus. Pages 431-45 in De la Trah au Messie:
tudes dexgse et dhermneutique bibliques offertes Henri Cazalles pour ses 25
annes denseignement lInstitut Catholique de Paris. Paris: Descle, 1981.
de Wette, W. M. L. Commentatio de morte Jesu Christi expiatoria. Berlin: s.n., 1813.
________. Lehrbuch der christliche Dogmatik in ihrer historischen Entwicklung dargestellt.
Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung, 1813.
dHolbach, Baron Paul Tiry. Ecce homo! An Eighteenth Century Life of Jesus: Critical Edition
and Revision of George Houstons Translation from the French. Edited by Andrew
Hunwick. History of Religions in Translation 1. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1995.
Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf. New York:
Charles Scribners Sons, n.d. (orig. 1919).
________. Jesus. Translated by C. B. Hedrick and F. C. Grant. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1949
(orig. 1939).

448
Didon, Henri. Jsus Christ. Paris: E. Plon, Nourrit and Cie, 1890.
Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures. London: Nisbet & Co., 1952.
________. The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments. New York; Evanston: Harper &
Row, 1962.
________. The Founder of Christianity. Great Britain: William Collins Sons, 1971.
________. The Framework of the Gospel Narrative. ExpT 43 (1931-32): 396-400.
________. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1963.
________. History and the Gospel. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1938.
________. The Parables of the Kingdom. Glasgow: Collins, 1961 (orig. 1935).
Doering, Lutz. Schabbat. TSAJ 78. Tbingen: Mohr, 1999.
Dowling, Elizabeth V. To the Ends of the Earth: Attitudes to Gentiles in Luke-Acts. Pages
191-208 in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by
David C. Sim and James S. McLaren. LNTS 499. London; New York: T & T Clark,
2013.
Downing, John. Jesus and Martyrdom. JTS 14 (1963): 279-93.
Doyson, A. O. Theological Legacies of the Enlightenment: England and Germany. Pages 45-
62 in England and Germany: Studies in Theological Diplomacy. Edited by S. W. Sykes.
Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1982.
Drane, John W. Paul, Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline
Epistles. London: SPCK, 1975.
Dubis, Mark. Messianic Woes in First Peter: Suffering and Eschatology in 1 Peter 4:12-19. Bern
et al.: Peter Lang, 2002.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
________. Jesus-tradition in Paul. Pages 155-78 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations
of the State of Current Research. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden;
Boston: Brill, 1994.
________. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus
and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1974.
________. Jesus, Table-Fellowship, and Qumran. Pages 254-72 in Jesus and the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

449
________. John the Baptists Use of Scripture. Pages 42-54 in The Gospels and the Scriptures
of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner. Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1994.
________. The Messianic Secret in Mark. Pages 116-131 in The Messianic Secret. Edited by
Christopher Tuckett. IRT 1. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
________. A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2005.
________. The Oral Gospel Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
________. Was Paul Against the Law? The Law in Galatians and Romans: A Test-Case of Text
in Context. Pages 455-75 in Texts and Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman.
Edited by Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press,
1995.
________. Pharisees, Sinners, and Jesus. Pages 463-89 in The Historical Jesus in Recent
Research. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2005.
________. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Dupont, Jacques. Lambassade de Jean-Baptiste (Matthieu 11,2-6; Luc 7,18-23). NRT 83
(1961): 805-21.
Eakin, Frank. Spiritual Obduracy and Parable Purpose. Pages 87-10 in The Use of the Old
Testament in the New and Other Essays. Edited by James M. Efird. Durham: Duke
University Press, 1972.
Easton, Burton Scott. The Gospel before the Gospels. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1928.
Ebner, Martin. Jesus von Nazaret in seiner Zeit: Sozialgeschichtliche Zugnge. SBS 196.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2003.
________. Jesusein Weisheitslehrer: synoptische Weisheitslogien im Traditionsprozess.
Herders biblische Studien 15. Freiburg: Herder, 1998.
Ebner, Martin and Stefan Schreiber, eds. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2008.
Ebrard, J. H. A. The Gospel History: A Critical Compendium of Critical Investigations. Edited
by Alexander B. Bruce. Translated by James Martin. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1863.
Eddy, Paul Rhodes, and Gregory A. Boyd. Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of
the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.
Edersheim, Alfred. Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 volumes. 8th edition. New York:
Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896 (orig. 1883).

450
Edwards, Richard A. The Eschatological Correlative as a Gattung in the New Testament.
ZNW 60 (1969): 9-20.
________. A Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy, and Wisdom. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1976.
Egger, Wilhelm. Frohbotschaft und Lehre: die Sammelberichte des Wirkens Jesu im
Markusevangelium. Frankfurt: J. Knecht, 1976.
Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999.
Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and
Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1980.
Ellis, E. Earl. Christ and the Future in New Testament History. NovTSup 97. Leiden; Boston:
Brill, 2000.
Ellwood, Thomas. Sacred History: or, The Historical Part of the Holy Scriptures of the New
Testament; Gathered Out from the Other Parts Thereof, and Digested (as Near as Well
Could Be) into Due Method, with Respect to the order of Time and Place. 2nd edition.
London: J. Sowle, 1719 (orig. 1705).
Ernst, Josef. Johannes der Tufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte. Berlin; New
York: de Gruyter, 1989.
________. War Jesus ein Schler Johannes des Taufers? Pages 13-33 in Vom Urchristentum zu
Jesus: fr Joachim Gnilka. Edited by Hubert Frankmolle and Karl Kertelge. Freiburg:
Herder, 1989.
Evans, Craig A. From Gospel to Gospel: The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament. Pages
651-91 in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition.
Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997.
________. Did Jesus Predict his Death and Resurrection? Pages 82-97 in Resurrection. Edited
by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs. JSNTSS 186. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
________. Jesus and Zechariahs Messianic Hope. Pages 373-88 in Authenticating the
Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden; Boston: Brill,
2002.
________. Prophet, Sage, Healer, Messiah, and Martyr: Types and Identities of Jesus. Pages
1217-44 in volume 2 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom
Holmn and Stanley E. Porter. 4 volumes. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.

451
________. From Public Ministry to the Passion: Can a Link Be Found between the
(Galilean) Life and the (Judean) Death of Jesus? Pages 301-18 in Jesus and His
Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1995.
________. Reconstructing Jesus Teaching: Prospects and Proposals, and Who Touched
Me? Jesus and the Ritually Impure. Pages 145-78 and 353-76 in Jesus in Context:
Temple, Purity, and Restoration. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. AGSU 39.
Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1997.
________. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of Johns Prologue.
JSNTSup 89. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Evans, Craig A., and Donald A. Hagner, eds. Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of
Polemic and Faith. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Evans, Robert. Reception History, Tradition and Biblical Interpretation: Gadamer and Jauss in
Current Practice. London et al.: Bloomsbury, 2014.
Ewald, Heinrich. The Life and Times of Christ. Volume 6 of History of Israel. Translated by J.
Frederick Smith. 2nd edition. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1883 (orig. 1843-
1859).
Fairbairn, A. M. Studies in the Life of Christ. New York: D. Appleton, 1882.
Farrar, Frederic William. Life of Christ. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1875.
Febvre, Lucien and Henri-Jean Martin. The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing 1450-
1800. Edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith and David Wootton. Translated by David
Gerard. London: NLB, 1976.
Feine, Paul. Jesus. Gtersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1930.
Feldman, Louis. Josephus Biblical Paraphrase as a Commentary on Contemporary Issues.
Pages 124-201 in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity.
Studies in Language and Tradition. Edited by Craig A. Evans. JSPSup 33. SSEJC 7.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Ferda, Tucker S. The Enlightenment, Deism, and the Painful Prick of the Second Advent
Expectation. Paper presened at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature.
Atlanta GA, 21 Nov. 2015.
________. Jeremiah 7 and Flavius Josephus on the First Jewish War. JSJ 44 (2013): 158-73.
________. John the Baptist, Isaiah 40, and the Ingathering of the Exiles. JSHJ 10 (2012): 154-
88.
________. Naming the Messiah: A Contribution to the 4Q246 Son of God Debate. DSD 21
(2014): 150-75.

452
________. The Soldiers Inscription and the Angels Word: The Significance of Jesus in
Matthews Titulus. NovT 55 (2013): 221-31.
Philip, Finny. The Origins of Pauls Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit
upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the Early Development of Pauls Theology. WUNT 194.
Tbingen: Mohr, 2005.
Fiedler, Peter. Studien zur biblischen Grundlegung des christlich-jdischen Verhltnisses.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005.
________. Die Tora bei Jesus und in der Jesusberlieferung. Pages 71-87 in Das Gesetz im
Neuen Testament. Edited by Karl Kertelge. QD 108. Freiburg: Herder, 1986.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 2
volumes. AB 28-28A. New York: Doubleday, 1981-85.
Flatt, Carl. De notione vocis . Tbingen: Drucker, 1794.
Fleddermann, Harry T. Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. BTS 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.
Fleetwood, John. The Life of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; Containing a Full and
Accurate History, from His Taking upon our Nature, to his Crucifixion, Resurrection
and Ascension: Together With the Lives, Transactions, and Sufferings of his Holy
Evangelists, Apostles and other primitive Martyrs: to which is added The History of the
Jews. New Haven: Nathan Whiting, 1832.
Flusser, David. Jesus. 3rd edition. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001.
Foster, Paul. Is it Possible to Dispense with Q? NovT 45 (2003): 313-37.
________. Is Q a Jewish Christian Document? Bib 94 (2013): 368-94.
France, Richard T. Jesus the Baptist? Pages 94-111 in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ:
Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Edited by Joel B. Green
and Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Frantzen, W. Die Leben Jesu-Bewegung seit Strauss: nach Uhlhorn, Luthardt, B. Weiss u.A.:
Vortrag. Dorpat: W. Frantzen, 1898.
Fredriksen, Paula. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of
Christianity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.
________. Did Jesus Oppose the Purity Laws? BRev 11 (1995): 18-25, 42-47.
________. Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalpytic Hope: Another Look at
Galatians 1 and 2. JTS 42 (1991): 532-64.
________. Why Should a Law-Free Mission Mean a Law-Free Apostle? JBL 134 (2015):
637-50.

453
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century
Hermeneutics. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1974.
Freyne, Sean. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1980.
________. Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays. WUNT 125. Tbingen: Mohr, 2000.
________. Jesus and the Servant Community in Zion: Continuity in Context. Pages 109-
124 in Jesus from Judaism to Christianity: Continuum Approaches to the Historical
Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmn. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007.
Frickenschmidt, D. Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker
Erzhlkunst. Tbingen: Franke, 1997.
Fuchs, Ernst. Studies of the Historical Jesus. SBT 42. Naperville: Allenson, 1964.
Fuller, Daniel P. Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutics of
Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Funk, Robert W. The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1988.
________. Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1996.
Funk, Robert W. and Roy W. Hoover. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of
Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
Fu, Gnther. Die Auffassung des Lebens Jesu bei dem Jenaer Kirchenhistoriker Karl von
Hase. PhD diss., University of Jena, 1955.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad, 1989.
Gagn, Andr. Sectarianism, Secret Teaching, and Self-DefinitionRelational Features
between Jesus, the Disciples, and the Outsiders. Pages 223-42 in Jesus in Continuum.
Edited by Tom Holmn. WUNT 28. Tbingen: Mohr, 2012.
Galland, C. Comblet. De Jsus prophte au souffl prophtique de lvangile: Limpact dune
figure. Pages 141-56 in Lintrigue dans le rcit biblique: quatrime colloque
international du RRENAB. Edited by Anne Pasquier, Daniel Marquerat, and Andr
Wnin. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Garca Martnez, Florentino, and Mladen Popovi, eds. Defining Identities: We, You, and the
Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008.
Gardner-Smith, P. Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1938.

454
Garsky, Zbynek. Das Wirken Jesu in Galila bei Johannes: Eine strukturale Analyse der
Intertextualitt des vierten Evangeliums mit den Synoptikern. WUNT 325. Tbingen:
Mohr, 2012,
Gathercole, Simon J. The Critical and Dogmatic Agenda of Albert Schweitzers The Quest of
the Historical Jesus. TynBul 51 (2000): 261-83.
________. The Pre-Existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006.
Gatrall, Jefferson J. A. The Real and the Sacred: Picturing Jesus in Nineteenth-Century Fiction.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2014.
Gaventa, Beverly Roberts and Richard B. Hays, eds. Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Gay, Peter. The Enlightenment: An Interpretation. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967.
Geikie, John Cunningham. The Life and Words of Christ. 2 volumes. New York: D.
Appleton and Co., 1880.
George, Augustin. Comment Jsus a-t-il percu sa propre mort? LumVie 20 (1971): 34-59.
Georgi, Dieter. The Interest in Life of Jesus Theology as a Paradigm for the Social History of
Biblical Criticism. HTR 85 (1992): 51-83.
Gerdmar, Anders. Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the
Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann. SJHC 20. Leiden; Boston: Brill,
2009.
Gerhardsson, Birger. Illuminating the Kingdom: Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels.
Pages 266-309 in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Edited by Henry Wansbrough.
JSNTSup 64. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
________. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic
Judaism and Early Christianity. Translated by Eric J. Sharpe. Lund: Gleerup, 1961.
Gerson, Johannes. Ioannis Gersonii opera omnia. Volume 4. Edited by Ellies du Pin. Antwerp:
s.n., 1706.
Gibson, John Monro. The Gospel of St. Matthew. Pages 697-810 in An Exposition of the
Bible. Volume 4 of Jeremiah-St. Mark. Hartford: S. S. Scranton Co., 1914.
Gieseler, Johann Karl Ludwig. Text-Book of Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Francis
Cunningham from 3rd German edition. 3 volumes. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea, and
Blanchard, 1836 (orig. 1824-35).

455
Gilliot, Claude. Creation of a Fixed Text. Pages 41-58 in Cambridge Companion to the
Qurn. Edited by Jane Dammen McAulifffe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2006.
Gilmont, Jean-Franois. John Calvin and the Printed Book. Translated by Karin Maag.
Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2005.
Gilmore, David D. Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. Washington D.C.:
American Anthropological Association, 1987.
Gilpin, William. An Exposition of the New Testament. 2 volumes. 4th edition. London: Cadel and
Davies, 1811.
Gnilka, Joachim. Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History. Translated by Siegfried S.
Schatzmann. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.
________. Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 1-8:26). EKKNT. Kln: Benzinger, 1978.
________. Die Verstockung Israels: Isaias 6,9-10 in der Theologie der Synoptiker. Munich:
Ksel, 1961.
Godzieba, Anthony J. From Vita Christi to Marginal Jew: The Life of Jesus as Criterion of
Reform in Pre-critical and Post-critical Quests. LS 32 (2007): 111-133.
Goguel, Maurice. Jesus and the Origins of Christianity. Translated by Olive Wyon. 2 volumes.
New York: Harper, 1960 (orig. 1932).
Gondreau, Paul. The Passions of Christs Soul in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Mnster:
Aschendorff, 2002.
Gordon, Bruce and Matthew McLean, eds. Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books,
Scholars and Their Readers in the Sixteenth Century. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012.
Grafton, Anthony and Megan Hale Williams. Christianity and the Transformation of the Book:
Origen, Eusebius, and the Library at Caesarea. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
2006.
Grandy, Andreas. Die Weisheit der Gottesherrschaft: Eine Untersuchung zur jesuanischen
Synthese von traditioneller und apokalyptischer Weisheit. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2012.
Grant, Frederick C. Ethics and Eschatology in the Teaching of Jesus. JR 22 (1942): 359-70.
Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historians Review of the Gospels. New York: Charles Scribners
Sons, 1977.
Grant, Robert M. The Coming of the Kingdom. JBL 67 (1948): 297-303.
________. The Earliest Lives of Jesus. London: SPCK, 1961.

456
Graves, J. R. The Work of Christ in the Covenant of Redemption; Developed in Seven
Dispensations. Memphis: Baptist Book House, 1883.
Gray, Rebecca. Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Green, Joel B. The Death of Jesus. Pages 2383-2408 in volume 3 of Handbook for the Study of
the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmn and Stanley E. Porter. 4 volumes. Leiden;
Boston: Brill, 2011.
________. The Theology of the Gospel of Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995.
Gregg, Brian Han. The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q. WUNT 207.
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Griesbach, Johann J. Synopsis evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae. 2nd edition. Halle: J. J.
Curtius, 1797.
Grillmeier, Aloys. From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451). Vol. 1 of Christ in Christian
Tradition. Translated by John Bowden. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975.
________. From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604). Vol. 2 of
Christ in Christian Tradition. Translated by John Cawte and Pauline Allen. London:
Mowbray; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.
Grimm, Werner. Die Verkndigung Jesu und Deuterojesaja. Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1981.
Grotius, Hugo. Annotationes in libros evangeliorum. Amsterdam: s.n., 1641.
________. A Defense of the Catholic Faith concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, Against
Faustus Socinus. Translated by Frank Hugh Foster. Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1889.
________. The Truth of the Christian Religion, with Jean Le Clercs Notes and Additions.
Translated by John Clarke. Edited by Maria Rosa Antognazza; Indianapolis: Liberty
Fund, 2012.
Grundmann, Walter. Evangelium nach Markus. ThHK 2. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1984.
________. Das Evangelium nach Matthus. Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1968.
Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1:8-26. WBC 34a. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.
Guignebert, Charles. Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1935 (orig.
1933).
Gutwenger, Engelbert. Bewusstsein und Wissen Christi: eine dogmatische Studie. Innsbruck: F.
Rauch 1960.

457
Guynot, Laurent. A New Perspective on John the Baptists Failure to Support Jesus. Journal
of Unification Studies 1 (1997): 71-92.
Hfner, Gerd. Das Ende der Kriterien? Jesusforschung angesichts der geschichtstheoretischen
Diskussion. Pages 97-130 in Historiographie und fiktionales Erzahlen: Zur
Konstruktivitat in Geschichtstheorie und Exegese. Edited by Knut Backhaus and Gerd
Hfner. BTS 86. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007.
Hgerland, Tobias. The Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research. JSHJ 13 (2015): 43-65.
________. Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Mission.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Hagner, Donald A. Jesus and the Synoptic Sabbath Controversies. Pages 251-92 in Key Events
in the Life of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb.
WUNT 247. Tbingen: Mohr, 2009.
Hales, John. The Works of the Ever Memorable Mr. John Hales of Eaton. 3 volumes. London: J.
Balfour; Glasgow: Robert and Andrew Foulis, 1765.
Hall, David R. The Gospel Framework, Fiction or Fact? A Critical Evaluation of Der
Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu by Karl Ludwig Schmidt. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998.
Halliwell, Stephen. Traditional Greek Conceptions of Character. Pages 32-59 in
Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature. Edited by C. B. R. Pelling. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Hanna, William. The Life of Christ. 3 volumes. New York: Hurst & Co., 1869.
Hanson, Richard. Jesus of History. London: Williams and Norgate, 1869.
Harnack, Adolf. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 3 volumes. 4th edition. Tbingen: Mohr,
1910.
________. Sprche und Reden Jesu. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907.
________. What is Christianity? Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1986.
Harrington, Daniel J. The Jewishness of Jesus: Facing Some Problems. Pages 123-36 in Jesus
Jewishness: Exploring the Place of Jesus within Early Judaism. New York: Crossroad,
1991.
Harrington, Hannah K. Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in a State of Ritual Purity? JSJ 26
(1995): 42-55.
Harris, James Rendel. The Gospel Harmony of Clement of Llanthony. JBL 43 (1924): 349-62.
Harrison, Peter. Fixing the Meaning of Scripture: The Renaissance Bible and the Origins of
Modernity. Concilium 1 (2002): 102-10.

458
________. Religion and the Religions in the English Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990.
________. The Territories of Science and Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2015.
Harrisville, Roy A., and Walter Sundberg. The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and
Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Ksemann. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Hartley, Donald E. The Wisdom Background and Parabolic Implications of Isaiah 6:9-10 in the
Synoptics. Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 2006.
Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982.
Hase, Karl. Das Leben Jesu: ein Lehrbuch zunchst fr akademische Vorlesungen. Leipzig:
Johann Friedrich Leich, 1829.
________. Life of Jesus: A Manual for Academic Study. Translated by James Freeman Clarke
from the 4th German edition. Boston: Walker, Wise, and Company, 1860.
Hatfield, Gary. Psychology. Pages 241-62 in The Cambridge History of Philosophy in the
Nineteenth Century (1790-1870). Edited by Allen W. Wood and Songsuk Susan Hahn.
Translated by Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Hatina, Thomas R. Did Jesus Quote Isaiah 29:13 against the Pharisees? An Unpopular
Appraisal, BBR 16 (2006): 79-94.
Haupt, Erich. Zum Verstndnis der eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu in den synoptischen
Evangelien. Halle: Waisenhaus, 1894.
Hauser, Alan J. and Duane F. Watson, eds. The Medieval Through the Reformation Periods.
Volume 2 of A History of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans,
2009.
Hay, Camillus. St. John Chrysostom and the Integrity of the Human Nature of Christ.
Franciscan Studies 19 (1959): 290-317.
Hays, Richard B. The Canonical Matrix of the Gospels. Pages 53-75 in The
Cambridge Companion to the Gospels. Edited by Steve Barton. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
________. The Story of Gods Son: The Identity of Jesus in the Letters of Paul. Pages 180-
199 in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage. Edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa
and Richard B. Hays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Hegel, G.W.F. Three Essays, 1793-1795: The Tbingen Essay, Berne Fragments, The Life of
Jesus. Edited and Translated by Peter Fuss and John Dobbins. Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1984.

459
Heil, C. Was ist Nachfolge Jesu? Antworten von Q, Matthus, Lukasund Jesus. BK 54
(1999): 80-84.
Heitmller, Wilhelm. Jesus. Tbingen: Mohr, 1913.
Hellerman, Joseph H. Challenging the Authority of Jesus: Mark 11:27-33 and Mediterranean
Notions of Honor and Shame. JETS 43 (2000): 213-28.
Henaut, Barry W. Oral Tradition and the Gospels: the Problem of Mark 4. JSNTSup 82.
Sheffield: Shefffield Academic Press, 1993.
Hengel, Martin. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
________. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. Translated by James Greig. New York:
Crossroad, 1981.
Hengel, Martin, and Anna Maria Schwemer. Jesus der Messias Israels. Pages 1-80 in Der
messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfnge der Christologie: Vier Studien. WUNT
138. Tbingen: Mohr, 2001.
Hengel, Martin, and Roland Deines. E. P. Sanders Common Judaism, Jesus, and the
Pharisees. JTS 46 (1995): 1-70.
Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. Reprint. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
Herbert of Cherbury, Edward. The Ancient Religion of the Gentiles, and the Causes of their
Errors Considered. London: John Nutt, 1705.
Herbst, Magdalena. Karl von Hase als Kirchenhistoriker. Tbingen: Mohr, 2012.
Herder, Johann. Smmtliche Werke. Edited by Bernhard Suphan, Carl Redlich, and Reinhold
Steig. 33 volumes. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1877-1913.
________. Vom Erlser der Menschen nach unsern 3 ersten Evangelien. Riga: Johann
Friedrich Hartknoch, 1796.
Herford, R. Travers. Judaism in the New Testament Period. London: Lindsey Press, 1928.
Herrenbrck, Fritz. Jesus und die Zllner: historische und neutestamentlich-exegetische
Untersuchgen. WUNT 41. Tbingen: Mohr, 1990.
Heschel, Susannah. Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1998.
________. The German Theological Tradition. Pages 353-74 in In Quest of the Historical
Pharisees. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton. Waco: Baylor University Press,
2007.

460
Hess, Johann Jakob. Lebensgeschichte Jesu. 8th edition. 3 volumes. Zrich: Drell, Fuli and Co.,
1822 (orig. 1781).
Heylyn, John. Theological Lectures at Westminster-Abbey: With an Interpretation of the Four
Gospels. London: s.n., 1749.
Hezser, Catherine. The Jesus Movement as a Popular Judaism for the Unlearned. Pages 79-
104 in JesusGestalt und Gestaltungen: Rezeptionen des Galilers in Wissenschaft,
Kirke und Gesellschaft. Festschrift fur Gerd Theien zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Petra
von Gemnden, David G. Horrell, and Max Kchler. NTOA 100. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Hiers, Richard H. The Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God: Present and Future in the
Message and Ministry of Jesus. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1973.
Hill, J. Hamlyn. Earliest Life of Christ Ever Compiled from the Gospels, Being the Diatessaron
of Tatian. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1894.
Hitchcock, Albert W. The Self-Consciousness of Jesus its Relation to the Messianic Hope, I.
The Old and New Testament Student 13 (1891): 209-20.
Hobbins, Daniel. Authorship and Publicity before Print: Jean Gerson and the Transformation of
Late Medieval Learning. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
Hoehner, H.W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. 5th edition. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1981.
Hoffmann, Jean G. H. Les vies de Jsus et le Jsus de l'histoire; tude de la valeur
historique des vies de Jsus de langue franaise, non catholiques, d'Ernest Renan
Charles Guignebert. Paris: Prostant apud Messageries vangliques distributeur, 1947.
Hoffmann, R. Joseph, ed. and trans. Julians Against the Galileans. Amherst: Prometheus Books,
2004.
________. On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1987.
________. Porphyrys Against the Christians: The Literary Remains. Amherst: Prometheus
Books, 1994.
Hoffmann, Paul. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. NTAbh 8. Mnster, Verlag
Aschendorff, 1972.
Holladay, Carl R. Schweitzers Jesus: Crushed on the Wheel of the World? EC 4 (2012): 435-
67.
Hollenbach, Paul W. The Conversion of Jesus: From Jesus the Baptizer to Jesus the Healer.
ANRW II 25 (1982): 196-219.

461
Holmberg, Bengt. Futures for the Jesus Quests. Pages 887-918 in volume 2 of Handbook for
the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmn and Stanley E. Porter. 4
volumes. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.
Holmn, Tom. A Contagious Purity: Jesus Inverse Strategy for Eschatological Cleanliness.
Pages 199-229 in Jesus Research: An International Perspective. Edited by James H.
Charlesworth and Petr Pokorn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Holtzmann, H. J. Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter.
Leipzig: Engelmann, 1863.
Holtzmann, Oscar. The Life of Jesus. Translated by J. T. Bealby and M. A. Canney.
London: Adam & Charles Black, 1904.
Hooke, S. H. The Kingdom of God in the Experience of Jesus. London: Gerald Duckworth &
Co., 1949.
Hooker, Morna D. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Reprint. London; New York: Continuum,
2001.
________. The Signs of a Prophet: The Prophetic Actions of Jesus. Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International, 1997.
________. T. W. Manson and the Twentieth-century Search for Jesus. BJRL 86 (2004): 77-98.
________. On Using the Wrong Tool. Theology 75 (1972): 570-81.
Hoppe Rudolf. How did Jesus Understand His Death? The Parables in Eschatological
Prospect. Pages 154-69 in Jesus Research: An International Perspective. Edited by
James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Horbury, William. Gospel in Herodian Judea. Pages 7-30 in The Written Gospel. Edited by
Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2005.
Horne, Thomas Hartwell. Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy
Scriptures. 3 volumes. 4th edition. Philadelphia: E. Littell, 1825.
Horsley, Richard A. Questions about Redactional Strata and Social Relations Reflected in Q.
Pages 186-203 in Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers. Edited by D. J.
Lull. SBLSP 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

________.Wisdom Justified by all her Children: Examining Allegedly Disparate Traditions in

Q. Pages 736-51 in Society of Biblical Literature 1994 Seminar Papers. Edited by E.
H. Lovering. SBLSP 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.

462
Horlsey, Richard A., ed. Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.
Horsley, Richard A. with Jonathan A. Draper. Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets,
Performance, and Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999.
Horstmann, Rolf-Peter. The Unity of Reason and the Diversity of Life: The Idea of a System in
Kant and in Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. Pages 61-94 in The Cambridge History of
Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century (1790-1870). Edited by Allen W. Wood and
Songsuk Susan Hahn. Translated by Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2012.
Hoskyns, E. C. The Fourth Gospel. London: Faber and Faber: 1947.
Howard, Thomas Albert. Religion and the Rise of Historicism: W. M. L. de Wette, Jacob
Burckhardt, and the Theological Origins of Nineteenth-Century Historical
Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Howell, Justin R. The Characterization of Jesus in Codex W. JECS 14 (2006): 47-75.
Huber, Konrad. Jesus in Auseinandersetzung: exegetische Untersuchungen zu den sogenannten
Jerusalemer Streitgesprchen des Markusevangeliums im Blick auf ihre christologischen
Implikationen. FB 75. Wrzburg: Echter, 1995.
Huijgen, Arnold. Divine Accommodation in John Calvins Theology: Analysis and Assessment.
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Hultgren, Arland J. Form Criticism and Jesus Research. Pages 649-71 in volume 1 of
Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 4 volumes. Edited by Tom Holmn and
Stanley E. Porter. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.
________. Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the
Synoptic Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1979.
________. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Hultgren, Stephen. Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place within
the Framework of the Gospel Narrative. BZNW 113. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter,
2002.
Hunter, Archibald M. The Work and Words of Jesus. Revised edition. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1975 (orig. 1950).
Husserl, Edmund. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Translated by W. R.
Boyce Gibson. London: G. Allen & Unwin; New York: Macmillan, 1931 (orig. 1913).
Hutton, Jeremy M. Topography, Biblical Traditions, and Reflections on Johns Baptism of
Jesus. Pages 149-77 in Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions. Edited by
James H. Charlesworth and Brian Rhea. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.

463
Israel, Jonathan I. Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Jackson, Henry L. The Eschatology of Jesus. London; New York: Macmillan, 1913.
Jackson, Lawrence. An Examination of a Book Intituled The True Gospel of Jesus Christ
Asserted, by Thomas Chubb. London: s.n., 1739.
Jacobson, Arland D. The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q. Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1992.
________. The Literary Unity of Q. JBL 101 (1982): 365-89.
Jansen, Cornelius. Commentarii in suam Concordiam, ac totam Historiam evangelicam.
Lugduni: Peter Landry, 1589.
Jefferson, Thomas. The Jefferson Bible: With the Annotated Commentaries on Religion of
Thomas Jefferson. Edited by O. I. A. Roche. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1964.
Jensen, Morten Hrning. Purity and Politics in Herod Antipass Galilee: The Case for Religious
Motivation. JSHJ 11 (2013): 3-34.
Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 3rd edition. London: SCM, 1966 (orig.
1935).
________. Der Gedanke des heiligen Restes im Sptjudentum und in der Verkngibung
Jesu. ZNW 42 (1949): 184-94.
________. Jesus Promise to the Nations. SBT 24. Revised edition. London: SCM, 1967 (orig.
1953).
________. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. Translated by John
Bowden. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1971 (orig. 1971).
________. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. 2nd edition. New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1972 (orig. 1958).
________. The Problem of the Historical Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964.
Johns, Christa Tecklenburg. Luthers Konzilsidee in ihrer historischen Bedingtheit und ihrem
reformatorischen Neuansatz. Berlin: Tpelmann, 1966.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The New Testaments Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of
Ancient Polemic. JBL 108 (1989): 419-441.
Jones, F. Stanley. Freiheit in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus: eine historische, exegetische
und religionsgeschichtliche Studie. GTA 34. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987.
Jones, F. Stanley, ed. The Rediscovery of Jewish Christianity: From Toland to Baur. SBLHBS
5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.

464
Joseph, Simon J. For Heaven and Earth to Pass Away? Reexamining Q 16,16-18,
Eschatology, and the Law. ZNW 105 (2014): 169-88.
________. Jesus, Q, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Judaic Approach to Q. WUNT 333. Tbingen:
Mohr, 2012.
Judge, Peter J. The Royal Official and the Historical Jesus. Pages 83-92 in Aspects of
Historicity in the Fourth Gospel. Volume 2 of John, Jesus, and History. Edited by Paul
N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.
Juel, Donald. Messiah and Temple. SBLDS 31. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.
Jlicher, Adolf. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 5th edition. Tbingen: Mohr, 1906 (orig.
1900).
_________. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. 2 volumes. 2nd edition. Tbingen: Mohr, 1910 (orig.
1888-89).
Khler, Martin. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ. Translated
by Carl E. Braaten. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964 (orig. 1892).
Kankaanniemi, Matti. Mission as Reaction: Exhausted Jesus at the Well of Sychar. Pages 161-
76 in The Mission of Jesus: Second Nordic Symposium on the Historical Jesus, Lund, 7-
10 October 2012. Edited by Samuel Byrskog and Tobias Hgerland. WUNT 391.
Tbingen: Mohr, 2015.
Karakolis, Christos. Narrative Funktion und christologische Bedeutung der markinischen
Erzhlung vom Tod Johannes des Tufers (Mk 6:14-29). NovT 52 (2010): 134-55.
Ksemann, Ernst. Essays on New Testament Themes. Translated by W. J. Montague. SBT 41.
London: SCM, 1964.
________. New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1969.
Kattenbusch, Ferdinand. Der Quellort der Kirchenidee. Pages 143-72 in Festgabe von
Fachgenossen und Freunden A. von Harnack zum siebzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht.
Tbingen: Mohr, 1921.
________. Der Spruch ber Petrus und die Kirche bei Matthus. TSK 94 (1922): 96-131.
Kazen, Thomas. Issues of Impurity in Early Judaism. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010.
________. Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Purity? Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wiksell, 2002.
________. Scripture, Interpretation or Authority? Motives and Argument in Jesus Halakic
Conflicts. WUNT 320. Tbingen: Mohr, 2013.

465
Keck, Leander E. Who is Jesus? History in Perfect Tense. Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press, 2000.
Kee, Howard Clark. Early Christianity in the Galilee: Reassessing the Evidence from the
Gospels. Pages 3-22 in The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine. New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992.
________. Jesus: A Glutton and Drunkard. Pages 311-32 in Authenticating the Words of
Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2002.
Keene, Nicholas. A Two-Edged Sword: Biblical Criticism and the New Testament Canon in
Early Modern England. Pages 94-115 in Scripture and Scholarship in Early Modern
England. Edited by Ariel Hessayon and Nicholas Keene. Aldershot; Burlington: Ashgate,
2006.
Keener, Craig S. Assumptions in Historical-Jesus Research: Using Ancient Biographies and
Disciples Traditioning as a Control. JSHJ 9 (2011): 26-58.
________. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
________. Jesus and Parallel Jewish and Greco-Roman Figures. Pages 85-112 in Christian
Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament.
Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013.
Keil, Carl. Historia dogmatis de regno Messiae Christi. Leipzig: s.n., 1781.
Keim, Theodor. Die menschliche Entwicklung Jesu Christi: akademische Antrittsrede am 17.
Dezember 1860. Zrich: Orell, Fssli, 1861.
________. The History of Jesus of Nazara, Freely Investigated in its Connection with the
National Life of Israel, and Related in Detail. Translated by Arthur Ransom. 6 volumes.
2nd edition. London: Williams and Norgate, 1876-83 (orig. 1867).
Keith, Chris. The Fall of the Quest for an Authentic Jesus. Pages 200-05 in Jesus, Criteria,
and the Demise of Authenticity. Edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne. London;
New York: T & T Clark, 2012.
________. The Indebtedness of the Criteria Approach to Form Criticism and Recent Attempts
to Rehabilitate the Search for an Authentic Jesus. Pages 25-48 in Jesus, Criteria, and the
Demise of Authenticity. Edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne. London; New
York: T & T Clark, 2012.
________. Jesus against the Scribal Elite: The Origins of the Conflict. Grand Rapids: Baker,
2014.
________. Memory and Authenticity: Jesus Tradition and What Really Happened. ZNW
102 (2011): 155-77.
Kelber, Werner. The Oral and Written Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

466
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Christology of Marks Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983.
Kinman, Brent. Jesus Royal Entry into Jerusalem. Pages 383-428 in Key Events in the Life of
the Historical Jesus. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247.
Tbingen: Mohr, 2009.
Kirk, Alan. The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony and Wisdom Redaction
in Q. NovTSup 91. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1998.
Kissinger, Warren S. The Lives of Jesus: A History and Bibliography. New York; London:
Garland Publishing, 1985.
Klancher, Nancy. A Genealogy for Reception History. BibInt 21 (2013): 99-129.
________. The Taming of the Canaanite Woman: Constructions of Christian Identity in the
Afterlife of Matthew 15:21-28. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013.
Klausner, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching. Translated by
Herbert Danby. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1925 (orig. 1922).
Kloppenborg, John. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 2000.

________. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. 2nd edition.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007 (orig. 1987).

________. Holtzmanns Life of Jesus According to the A Source: Part 1. JSHJ 4 (2006): 75-
108.

________. Holtzmanns Life of Jesus According to the A Source: Part 2. JSHJ 4 (2006):
203-23.

________. Memory, Performance, and the Sayings of Jesus. JSHJ 10 (2012): 97-132.

________. Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum. Pages 61-92 in Context II: Social Setting
and Archaeological Background of the Sayings Source. Edited by Markus Tiwald. BBB
173. Bonn: Bonn University Press, 2015.

________. The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus. HTR 89 (1996):
307-44.

________. Synoptic Problems: Collected Essays. WUNT 329. Tbingen: Mohr, 2014.

Knight, Mark. Wirkungsgeschichte, Reception History, Reception Theory. JSNT 22 (2010):

137-46.

467
Knowles, Michael. Jeremiah in Matthews Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthean
Redaction. JSNTSSup 68. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993.

Koecher, Johann C. Analecta philologica et exegetica in quatuor SS. Evangelia. Altenburg:

Richteria, 1766.

Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990.

________. Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels. HTR 73 (1980): 105-30.

________. Jesus the Victim. JBL 111 (1992): 3-15.

Kollmann, Bernd. Jesus und die Christen als Wundertter: Studien zu Magie, Medizin, und
Schamanismus in Antike und Christentum. FRLANT 170. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1996.

Konradt, Matthias. Die Sendung zu Israel und zu den Volkern im Matthusevangelium im

Lichte seiner narrative Christologie. ZKT 101 (2004): 397-425.

Krtner, Ulrich H. J. Papias von Hierapolis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des frhen
Christentums. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.

Kosch, Daniel. Q und Jesus. BZ 36 (1992): 30-58.

Kraeling, Carl H. John the Baptist. New York; London: Charles Scribners Sons, 1951.

Krans, Jan and Jozef Verheyden, eds. Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays
of William L. Petersen. NTTS 40. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012.
Krauss, Samuel. The Jewish-Christian Controversy: From the Earliest Times to 1789. Edited and
revised by William Horbury. TSAJ 56. Tbingen: Mohr, 1995.

Kremer, Jacob. Jesu Wort zur Ehescheidung. Pages 51-67 in Geschieden, Wiederverheiratet,
Abgewiesen? Antworten der Theologie. Edited by Theodor Schneider. QD 157. Freiburg:
Herder, 1995.

Kruse, Heinz. Jesu Seefahrten und die Stellung von Joh. 6. NTS 30 (1984): 508-30.
Kugel James L. and Rowan A. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1986.
Kmmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by Howard Clark Kee.
17th edition. Nashville; New York: Abingdon Press, 1975.
________. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. Translated by
S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee. Nashville; New York: Abingdon, 1972.

468
________. Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus. Translated by
Dorothea M. Barton from 3rd German edition. 2nd edition. SBT 23. London: SCM Press,
1961.
Knzi, Martin. Das Naherwartungslogion Matthus 10,23: Geschichte seiner Auslegung. BGBE
9. Tbingen: Mohr, 1970.
Kuthirakkattel, Scaria. The Beginning of Jesus' Ministry According to Marks Gospel (2,14-3, 6):
A Redactional Critical Study. AnBib 123. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1990.
LaCocque, Andr. Jesus the Central Jew: His Times and His People. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015.
Lambinet, Julien. Les principes de la mthode exgtique de J.A. Bengel (1687-1752), pitiste
du Wrttemberg. ETL 89 (2013): 253-78.
Lambrecht, Jan. Jesus and the Law: An Investigation of Mk 7, 1-23. ETL 53 (1977): 24-79.
________. Redaction and Theology in Mk, IV. Pages 269-308 in Lvangile selon Marc:
Tradition et Redaction. Edited by M. Sabbe. 2nd edition. BETL 24. Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 1988.
Lamy, Bernard. Commentarius in concordiam Evangelicam et Apparatus chronologicus et
geographicus. 2 volumes. Paris: Johannes Anisson, 1699.
Lane, T. J. Luke and the Gentile Mission: Gospel Anticipates Acts. Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1996.
Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction,
Exposition, and Notes. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Lange, Johann Peter. The Life of the Lord Jesus Christ: A Complete Critical Examination of the
Origins, Contents, and Connection of the Gospels. Edited by Marcus Dods. 6 volumes.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1864 (orig. 1844-47).
Lattke, Michael. The Call to Discipleship and Proselytizing. HTR 92 (1999): 359-62.
Laufen, Rudolf. Die Doppelberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums. BBB
54. Konigstein; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1980.
Law, David R. The Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed. London; New York:
T & T Clark, 2012.
Law, Edmund. Considerations on the Theory of Religion. 4th edition. London: s.n., 1759.
Lawrenz, III, Melvin E. The Christology of John Chrysostom. Lewiston; Queenston; Lampeter:
Mellon University Press, 1996.
Leclerc, Jean. Harmonia evangelica cui subjecta est historia Christi ex quatuor Evangeliis
concinnata. Amsterdam: s.n., 1699.

469
Le Donne, Anthony. The Criterion of Coherence: Its Development, Inevitability, and
Historiographical Limitations. Pages 95-114 in Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of
Authenticity. Edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne. London; New York: T & T
Clark, 2012.
________. The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David. Baylor:
Baylor University Press, 2009.
________. The Jewish Leaders. Pages 199-218 in Jesus among Friends and Enemies: A
Historical and Literary Introduction to Jesus in the Gospels. Edited by Chris Keith and
Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.
Legaspi, Michael C. The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010.
Lon-Dufour, Xavier. The Gospels and the Jesus of History. Edited and translated by John
McHugh. New York et al.: Desclee, 1968 (orig. 1963).
Levine, Amy-Jill. Lukes Pharisees. Pages 113-30 In Quest of the Historical Pharisees. Edited
by Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007.
________. The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006.
Lichtenberger, Frederic. History of German Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Edinburgh:
Clark, 1889.
Lichtenberger, H. Josephus ber Johannes den Tufer, Jesus und Jakobus. BK 53 (1998): 67-
71.
Liebenberg, Jacobus. The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus. BZNW 102. Berlin: de Gruyter,
2001.
Lieu, Judith. Neither Jew nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity. 2nd edition. London et al.:
Bloomsbury, 2016.
Lightfoot, John. The Harmony, Chronicle and Order of the New Testament. Volume 3 of The
Whole Works of Rev. John Lightfoot. Edited by John Rogers Pitman. London: J. F. Dove,
1822.
Lightfoot, R. H. Form Criticism and Gospel Study. ExpT 53 (1942): 51-54.
________. History and Interpretation in the Gospels. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935.
Lightstone, Jack. The Commerce of the Sacred: Meditation of the Divine among Jews in the
Greco-Roman Diaspora. Chico: Scholars Press, 1984.
Limor, Ora, and Guy Strumza, eds. Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics between
Christians and Jews. Tbingen: Mohr, 1996.

470
Lindars, Barnabas. All Foods Clean: Thoughts on Jesus and the Law. Pages 61-71 in Law and
Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity. Cambridge:
James Clarke, 1988.
________. New Testament Apologetic. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961.
Lindemann, Andreas. Die Logienquelle Q. Fragen an eine gut begrndete Hypothese. Pages 3-
26 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by A. Lindemann. BETL
158. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Sterling: Peeters, 2001.
Linnemann, Eta. Jesus und der Tafer. Pages 219-36 in Festschrift fr Ernst Fuchs. Edited by
Gerhard Ebeling et al. Tbingen: Mohr, 1973.
Llewelyn, S. The Traditionsgeschichte of Matt. 11:12-13, par: Luke 16:16. NovT 36 (1994):
330-49.
Loader, William R. G. Jesus Attitude towards the Law. WUNT 97. Tbingen: Mohr, 1997.
Locke, John. An Essay for the Understanding of St Pauls Epistles by Consulting St. Paul
Himself. Pages 51-66 in John Locke: Writings on Religion. Edited by Victor Nuovo.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.
________. The Reasonableness of Christianity. Edited by John C. Higgins-Biddle. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1999.
Loisy, Alfred. The Origins of the New Testament. Translated by J. P. Jacks. London: Allen and
Unwin, 1950 (orig. 1936).
Longenecker, Bruce. The Wilderness and Revolutionary Ferment in First-Century Palestine: A
Response to D.R. Schwartz and J. Marcus. JSJ 29 (1998): 322-36.
Lvestam, Evald. Jesus and this Generation: A New Testament Study. CB 25. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995.
de Lubac, Henri. History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen.
Translated by Anne Englund Nash. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007.
Lucci, Diego. Scripture and Deism: The Biblical Criticism of the Eighteenth-Century British
Deists. SEMEC 3. Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 2008.
Ldemann, Gerd. Jesus after Two Thousand Years: What He Really Said and Did. Amherst,
Prometheus Books, 2001.
Ludolph the Carthusian. La grande vie de Jesus-Christ. Translated by Florent Broquin. 7
volumes. 2nd edition. Paris: C. Dillet, 1883.
Lhrmann, Dieter. Die Redaktion der Logienquelle. WMANT 33. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.

471
Lund, Eric, ed. Seventeenth-Century Lutheran Meditations and Hymns. New York; Mahwah:
Paulist Press, 2011.
Lund, ystein. Way Metaphors and Way Topics in Isaiah 40-55. WUNT 28. Tbingen: Mohr,
2007.
Lundsteen, August Christen. Hermann Samuel Reimarus und die Anfnge der Leben-Jesu
Forschung. Copenhagen: A.C. Olsen, 1939.
Lundstrm, Gsta. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus: A History of Interpretation
from the Last Decades of the Nineteenth Century to the Present Day. Translated by Joan
Bulman. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1963.
Luther, Martin. A Brief Introduction on What to Look for and Expect in the Gospels (1521) in
Word and Sacrament I. Volume 35 of Luthers Works. Edited and translated by E.
Theodore Bachmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960.
________. Twenty-first Sermon (on John 6) in Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Chapters 6-8.
Volume 23 of Luthers Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Translator not mentioned. St.
Louis: Concordia, 1959.
Luz, Ulrich. Fictionality and Loyalty to Tradition in Matthews Gospel in the Light of Greek
Literature. Pages 54-79 in Studies in Matthew. Translated by Rosemary Selle. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

________. Matthew: A Commentary. Translated by James E. Crouch. 3 volumes. Hermeneia.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001-2007.

________. Matthews Interpretive Tendencies and the Historical Jesus. Pages 577-99 in
Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions. Edited by James H. Charlesworth
and Brian Rhea. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.

Lyons, William John. A Prophet is Rejected in His Hometown (Mark 6.4 and Parallels). JSHJ
6 (2008): 59-84.

Macaskill, Grant. Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early
SJSJ 115. Christianity. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007.

________. Warum zog Jesus nach Jerusalem? Pages 409-429 in Der historische Jesus:
Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwrtigen Forschung. Edited by Jens Schrter
and Ralph Brucker. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2002.

Mack, Burton. The Kingdom that Didnt Come: A Social History of the Q Tradents.
Pages 608-35 in Society of Biblical Literature 1988 Seminar Papers. Edited by D. J. Lull.
SBLASP 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

472
________. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.

________. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

Mackinnon, James. The Historic Jesus. London; New York: Longmans, 1931.

Macquarrie, John. Jesus Christ in Modern Thought. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity
Press International, 1990.

Magidan, Kevin. The Passions of Christ in High-Medieval Thought: An Essay on Christological

Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Major, H.D.A. The Mission and Message of Jesus. An Exposition of the Gospels in the Light
of Modern Research. New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1938.

Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Marks Gospel. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.

Malina, Bruce J. Criteria for Assessing the Authentic Words of Jesus: Some Specifications.
Pages 27-46 in Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A.
Evans. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2002.
________. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1981.
Malina, Bruce J. and Jerome H. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in
Matthew. Sonoma: Polebridge, 1998.
Mangenot, . Les Evangiles Synoptiques. Paris: Letouzey et An, 1911.
Mann, C. S. The Gospel According to St. Mark. AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 1986.
Manson, T. W. Is it Possible to Write a Life of Christ? ExpT 53 (1941-42): 248-51.
________. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1949.
________. The Servant-Messiah: A Study in the Public Ministry of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1953.
________. The Teaching of Jesus: Studies in Its Form and Content. 2nd edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1967 (orig. 1931).
Marcus, Joel. The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus. Pages 247-278
in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans.
Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2002.

473
________. John the Baptist and Jesus. Pages 179-97 in Christianity in the Beginning. Volume
1 of When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini.
Edited by Daniel Harrington, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and Jacob Neusner. JSJSup 85.
Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003.
________. Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 27. New
Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2000.
________. Mark 8-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 27A. New
Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009.
________. Mark 9,11-13: As It Has Been Written. ZNW 80 (1989): 42-63.
________. The Way of the Lord. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992.
Marsh, Clive. Quests of the Historical Jesus in New Historicist Perspective. BibInt 5 (1997):
403-37.
Martin, Dale. Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous. JSNT 37 (2014): 3-24.
Martin, Henri-Jean. The History and Power of Writing. Translated by Lydia G. Cochrane.
Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Martin, James P. The Last Judgment in Protestant Theology from Orthodoxy to Ritschl. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
________. Toward a Post-Critical Paradigm. NTS 33 (1987): 370-85.
Marxsen, Willi. Der Evangelist Markus. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956.
Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament, the New Testament and Josephus: an
Overview. Pages 15-48 in Josephus und das Neue Testament. Edited by Christfried
Bttrich and Jens Herzer. Tubingen: Mohr, 2007.
________. Josephuss Pharisees: The Narratives. Pages 3-40 in In Quest of the Historical
Pharisees. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton. Waco: Baylor University Press,
2007.
Matlock, Barry R. Zeal for Paul but not According to Knowledge: Douglas Campbells War on
Justification Theory. JSNT 34 (2011): 115-149.
Matthews, Shailer. The Messianic Hope in the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1905.
Maurenbrecher, Max. Von Nazareth nach Golgatha: Untersuchungen ber die welt
geschichtlichen Zusammenhnge des Urchristentums. Berlin: Schneberg, 1909.
May, David M. Mark 3:20-35 from the Perspective of Shame/Honor. BTB 17 (1987): 83-87.

474
McArthur, Harvey K. The Quest through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.
McAuliffe, Jane Dammen. The Tasks and Traditions of Interpretation. Pages 181-209 in The
Cambridge Companion to the Qurn. Edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God as
Set Forth in the Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959.
McClelland, Charles E. State, Society, and the University in Germany (1700-1914). Cambridge;
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
McCown, Chester Charlton. The Search for the Real Jesus: A Century of Historical Study. New
York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1940.
McEleney, Neil J. Authenticating Criteria and Mark 7:1-23. CBQ 34 (1972): 431-60.
McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought.
2nd edition. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.
________. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. 2nd edition. New
York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
________. The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to
Pannenberg. Oxford; New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
McGrath, Alister E., ed. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought. Oxford;
Cambridge: Blackwell, 1993.
McGrath, James F. Jesus as False Prophet. Pages 95-110 in Who do My Opponents Say that I
Am?: An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus. Edited by Scot
McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2008.
McKnight, Scot. Calling Jesus Mamzer. JSHJ 1 (2003): 73-103.
________. Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement
Theory. Waco: Baylor, 2005.
________. Jesus and Prophetic Action. BBR 10 (2000): 197-232.
________. A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999.
McLeod, Frederick G. The Christology in Theodore of Mopsuestias Commentary on the
Gospel of John. TS 73 (2012): 115-38.
McNamara, Martin. Targum and New Testament: Collected Essays. WUNT 279. Tbingen:
Mohr, 2011.

475
McNeil, Mary Germaine. Simone Fidati and His De Gestis Domini Salvatoris: A Dissertation.
Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950.
Meggitt, Justin. The Historical Jesus and Healing: Jesus Miracles in Psychosocial Context.
Pages 17-43 in Spiritual Healing: Scientific and Religious Perspectives. Edited by Fraser
Watts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Meier, John P. The Historical Jesus and the Historical Law: Some Problems within the
Problem. CBQ 65 (2003): 52-79.
________. Jesus, the Twelve, and the Restoration of Israel. Pages 365-404 in Restoration:
Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. JSJSup 72. Leiden; Boston: Brill,
2001.
________. John the Baptist in Josephus: Philology and Exegesis. JBL 111 (1992): 225-37.
________. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 5 vols. New York: Doubleday,
1991-2015.
Menken, Maarten J. J. Fulfillment of Scripture as a Propaganda Tool in Early Christianity.
Pages 179-98 in Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and
Hellenism. Edited by Pieter W. van der Horst et al. Leuven: Peters, 2003.
________. The Quotation from Isa. 40, 3 in John 1, 23. Bib 66 (1985): 190-205.
Merenlahti, Petri. Characters in the Making: Individuality and Ideology in the Gospels. Pages
49-72 in Characterization in the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism. Edited by
David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Merkel, Helmut. Markus 7.15: das Jesuswort ber die innere Verunreinigung. ZRGG 20
(1968): 340-63.
________. The Opposition between Jesus and Judaism. Pages 129-44 in Jesus and the Politics
of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984.
________. Die Widersprche zwischen den Evangelien: Ihre polemische und apologetische
Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin. WUNT 13; Tbingen: Mohr, 1971.
Merklein, Helmut. Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft. 2nd edition. Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1983.
________. Die Umkehrpredigt bei Johannes dem Tufer und Jesus von Nazaret. BZ 25 (1981):
29-41.
Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1979.

476
________. Appointed Deed, Appointed Doer: Jesus and the Scriptures. Pages 155-76 in
Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans.
Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2002.
________. Christus Faber: The Master Builder and the House of God. Allison Park:
Pickwick Publications, 1992.
________. Jesus and the Remnant of Israel. JBL 84 (1965): 123-130.
Michaelis, Johann D. Introduction to the New Testament. 4 volumes. Translated by Herbert
Marsh from the 4th German edition. 2nd English edition. London: F. and C. Rivington,
1802.
Miller, R. J. The Rejection of the Prophets in Q. JBL 107 (1988): 225-40.
Miller, Robert. The History of the Propagation of Christianity and the Overthrow of Paganism,
Wherein the Christian Religion is Confirmed. 2 volumes. 2nd edition. London: G. Strahan
et al., 1726.

Mitchell, Margaret M. Pauline Accomodation and Condescension (): 1 Cor

9:19-23 and the History of Influence. Pages 197-214 in Paul Beyond the
Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels Engberg-Petersen. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 2001.
Modica, Joseph B. Jesus as Glutton and Drunkard. Pages 50-75 in Who do My Opponents Say
that I Am?: An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus. Edited by
Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2008.
Moessner, David. The Leaven of the Pharisees and This Generation: Israels Rejection of
Jesus According to Luke. JSNT 34 (1988): 21-46.
Mohr, Till Arend. Markus- und Johannespassion: Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung der Markinischen und Johanneischen Passionstradition. AThANT 70.
Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982.
Moloney, Raymond. Approaches to Christs Knowledge in the Patristic Era. Pages 37-66 in
Studies in Patristic Christology. Edited by Thomas Finan and Vincent Twomey.
Portland: Four Courts, 1998.
________. The Knowledge of Christ. New York; London: Continuum, 1999.
Monnier, Henri. La mission historique de Jsus. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1906.
Moo, Douglas J. Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law. JSNT 20 (1984): 3-49.
Moreland, Milton C. Q and the Economics of Early Roman Galilee. Pages 561-75 in The
Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by A. Lindemann. BETL 158. Leuven:
Leuven University Press; Sterling: Peeters, 2001.

477
Moretti, Franco. The Way of the World: The Bildungsroman in European Culture. London:
Verso, 1987.
Morgan, Thomas. The Moral Philosopher: in a Dialogue between Philalethes a Christian Deist,
and Theophanes a Christian Jew. London: s.n., 1737.
Mortimer, Sarah. Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of Socinianism.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Moule, C. F. D. The Influence of Circumstances on the Use of Eschatological Terms. JTS 15
(1964): 1-15.
Moxnes, Halvor. The Construction of Galilee as a Place for the Historical Jesus: The Heritage
of the Nineteenth Century. Pages 1-18 in Holy Land as Homeland? Edited by Keith W.
Whitelam. SWBA 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011.
________. Jesus the Jew: Dilemmas of Interpretation. Pages 83-103 in Fair Play:
Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity: Essays in Honour of Heikki Risnen.
Edited by Ismo Dunderberg et al. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2002.
________. Lost in Translation: What Happened to the Eunuchs in Matthew 19:12? Fourth R
17 (2004): 3-8, 20.
________. The Mission of Jesus to the Totality of the Jewish Land in Schleiermachers Life
of Jesus. Pages 25-40 in The Mission of Jesus: Second Nordic Symposium on the
Historical Jesus, Lund, 7-10 October 2012. Edited by Samuel Byrskog and Tobias
Hgerland. WUNT 391. Tbingen: Mohr, 2015.
Moyise, Steve. Jesus and Isaiah. Neot 43 (2009): 249-70.
________. Jesus and the Scriptures of Israel. Pages 1137-68 in volume 2 of Handbook for
the Study of the Historical Jesus. 4 volumes. Edited by Tom Holmn and Stanley E.
Porter. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.
Muirhead, Lewis A. The Eschatology of Jesus, or, The Kingdom Come and Coming. New
York: A.C. Armstrong & Son, 1904.
Mullen, Patrick J. Dining with Pharisees. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2004.
Muller, Gerhard. Osianders Evangelienharmonie. Pages 256-64 in Histoire de l'exgse au
XVIe sicle: textes du colloque international tenu a Genve en 1976. Edited by Olivier
Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel. Geneva: Droz, 1978.
Muller, Richard A., and John L. Thompson, eds. Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the
Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Mller, Ulrich B.Vision und Botschaft: Erwgungen zur prophetischen Struktur der
Verkndigung Jesu. ZTK 74 (1977): 416-48.

478
Murphy-OConnor, J. Jesus and the Money Changers (Mark 11:15-17; John 2:13-17). RB 107
(2000): 42-55.
________. John the Baptist and Jesus: History and Hypotheses. NTS 36 (1990): 359-74.

Murray, James. The History of Religion: Particularly of the Principal Dominations of the
Christians. 4 volumes. 2nd edition. London: C. Henderson, W. Nicoll, and J. Johnson,
1764.

Muslow, Martin and Jan Rohls, eds. Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists
and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe. BSIH 134. Leiden; Boston:
Brill, 2005.

Mussner, Franz. Gab es eine galilaische Krise? Pages 238-52 in Orientierung an Jesus:
Zur Theologie der Synoptiker. Edited by Paul Hoffmann. Freiburg; Basel; Wien:
Herder, 1973.
________. Was lehrt Jesus ber das Ende der Welt? Freiburg: Herder, 1987.
Nave, Guy D. The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke-Acts. AcBib 4. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2002.
Neander, August. The Life of Jesus Christ in its Historical Connexion and Historical
Development. Translated from the 4th German edition by John McClintock and Charles E.
Blumenthal. New York; Harper & Brothers, 1855 (orig. 1837).
Nelson, Samuel. The History of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. London: s.n., 1759.
Neusner, Jacob. The Debate with E. P. Sanders since 1970. Pages 395-408 in In Quest of the
Historical Pharisees. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton. Waco: Baylor
University Press, 2007.
________. The Pharisaic Agenda: Laws Attributed in the Mishnah and the Tosefta to the
Pre-70 Pharisees. Pages 313-28 in In Quest of the Historical Pharisees. Edited by Jacob
Neusner and Bruce Chilton. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007.
Newton, Isaac. Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John.
Dublin: S. Powell for G. Risk, G. Ewing and W. Smith, 1733.
Newton, John. The Works of the Rev. John Newton. 4 volumes. Reprint. New-Haven: Nathan
Whiting, 1826.
Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism.
HTS 56. Revised edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006.
________. The We and the Other in the Worldview of 1 Enoch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and
Other Early Jewish Texts. Pages 262-78 in The Other in Second Temple Judaism:

479
 Essays in Honor of John J. Collins. Edited by Daniel C. Harlow et al. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2011.
Niebuhr, K.-W. Jesus, Paulus und die Phariser: Beobachtungen zu ihren historischen
Zusammenhngen, zum Toraverstndnis und zur Anthropologie. RCT 34 (2009): 317-
46.
Nineham, D. E. The Order of Events in St. Marks Gospel: An Examination of Dr. Dodds
Hypothesis. Pages 223-39 in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H.
Lightfoot. Edited by D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955.
Nir, Rivka. Josephus Account of John the Baptist: A Christian Interpolation? JSHJ 10 (2012):
32-62.
Nodet, tienne. Jsus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josphe. RB 92 (1985): 497-524.
Nldeke, Theodor, et al. The History of the Qurn. Edited and translated by Wolfgang H. Behn.
Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013.
Norris, R.A. Manhood and Christ: A Study in the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.
Novenson, Matthew. Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah
Language in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Oakman, Douglas E. The Political Aims of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.
Oberlinner, Lorenz. Todeserwartung und Todesgewiheit Jesu: Zum Problem einer historischen
Begrndung. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980.
OBrien, Julia M. Challenging Prophetic Metaphor: Theology and Ideology in the Prophets.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.
Ochs, Christoph. Matthaeus Adversus Christianos. WUNT 350. Tbingen: Mohr, 2013.
OCollins, Gerald. Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. 2nd
edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
________. On Reissuing Venturini. Gregorianum 75 (1994): 241-65.
Ogg, G. The Chronology of the Public Ministry of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1940.
Okorie, Adaoma M. The Art of Characterization in the Lukan Narrative: Jesus, the Disciples
and the Populace. R&T 2 (1995): 274-82.
Olshausen, Hermann. Commentary on the Gospels: Adapted Expressly for Preachers and
Students. Translated by H. B. Creak. 4 volumes. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: T & T Clark;
New York: J. Wiley, 1854 (orig. 1830).

480
Olson, Duane. Issues in Contemporary Christian Thought. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011.
ORourke, John J. Possible Uses of the Old Testament in the Gospels: An Overview. Pages 15-
27 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard
Stegner. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.
Orr, John. English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1934.
Otto, Rudolf. The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man. Translated by Floyd V. Filson and
Bertram Lee Woolf. Revised edition. London: Lutterworth, 1943 (orig. 1934).
________. Life and Ministry of Jesus: According to the Historical Critical Method, being a
Course of Lectures. Translated by H. J. Whitby. Chicago: Open Court. 1908 (orig. 1901).
Pagenkemper, Karl E. Rejection Imagery in the Synoptic Parables. BSac 153 (1996): 308-31.
Paget, James Carleton. Albert Schweitzers Second Edition of The Quest of the Historical
Jesus. BJRL 9 (2010): 3-38.
________. Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians and Antiquity. WUNT 251. Tbingen: Mohr,
2010.
________. Quests for the Historical Jesus. Pages 138-55 in The Cambridge Companion to
Jesus. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
________. Review of Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James, by Dale C.
Allison Jr. EC 5 (2014): 393-416.
Pailin, David. British Views on Religion and Religions in the Age of William and Mary.
Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 6 (1994): 349375.
Painter, J. Tradition and Interpretation in John 6. NTS 35 (1989): 421-50.
Palladini, Fiammetta. The Image of Christ in Grotiuss De Veritate Religionis Christianae:
Some Thoughts on Grotiuss Socinianism. Grotiana 33 (2012): 58-69.
Pals, Daniel L. Max Muller, E. B. Tylor, and the Intellectualist Origins of the Science of
Religion. International Journal of Comparative Religion 1 (1995): 69-83.
________. The Victorian Lives of Jesus. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1982.
Parris, David Paul. Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics. PTMS 107. Eugene: Pickwick,
2009.
Parvis, Sara. Christology in the Early Arian Controversy: The Exegetical War. Pages 120-37
in Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. LNTS 348. Edited by
Andrew T. Lincoln and Angus Paddison. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007.
Patterson, Stephen J. The End of Apocalypse: Rethinking the Eschatological Jesus. ThTo 52
(1995): 29-48.

481
________. The God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Search for Meaning. Harrisburg:
Trinity Press International, 1998.
________. An Unanswered Question: Apocalyptic Expectation and Jesus Basileia
Proclamation. JSHJ 8 (2010): 67-79.
Paulus, Heinrich E. G. Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des
Urchristentums. 2 volumes. Heidelberg: C. F. Winter, 1828.
Payne, George. Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, Election, the Atonement, Justification, and
Regeneration. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1836.
Pearce, Zachary. A Commentary, with Notes, on the Four Evangelists and the Acts of the
Apostles. London: E. Cox, 1777.
Pearson, Birger A. A Q Community in Galilee? NTS 50 (2004): 486-89.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. 5
Volumes. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1971-1989.
Perrin, Norman. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1963.
________. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York; Evanston: Harper & Row, 1967.
Pesch, Christian. Die Evangelienharmonie seit dem 16. Jahrhundert (Ueber
Evangelienharmonien II). ZKT 10 (1886): 454-80.
________. Ueber Evangelienharmonien. ZKT 10 (1886): 225-244.
Pesch, Rudolf. Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverstndnis. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1978.
________. Anfang des Evangeliums Jesu Christi. Pages 108-44 in Die Zeit Jesu. Festschrift
fr Heinrich Schlier. Edited by Gnther Bornkamm and Karl Rahner. Freiburg: Herder,
1970.
________. Das Markusevangelium: Teil 2, Einleitung und Kommentar zu Kap. 8,27-16,20.
HThKNT 2. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1977.
Peters, Curt. Das Diatessaron Tatians: seine berlieferung und sein Nachwirken im Morgen-
und Abendland sowie der heutige Stand seiner Erforschung. OrChrAn 123. Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1939.
Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, as Covenanted in
the New Testament. 3 volumes. New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884.
Pickup, Martin. Matthews and Marks Pharisees. Pages 67-112 in In Quest of the Historical
Pharisees. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton. Waco: Baylor University Press,
2007.

482
Pilkington, Matthew. The Evangelical History and Harmony. London: W. Bowyer, 1747.
Piper, Otto A. The Origin of the Gospel Pattern. JBL 78 (1959): 115-24.
Pitcher, L. V. Characterization in Ancient Historiography. Pages 102-17 in volume 1 of A
Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Edited by John Marincola. 2 volumes.
Malden; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007.
Pitre, Brant. Jesus and the Last Supper. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.
________. Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the
Origin of the Atonement. WUNT 204. Tbingen: Mohr; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Pettegree, Andrew. The Book in the Renaissance. New Haven; London: Yale University Press,
2010.
Poirier, John C. Why Did the Pharisees Wash Their Hands? JSJ 47 (1996): 217-33.
Polag, Athanasius. Die Christologie der Logienquelle. WMANT 45. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener-Verlag, 1977.
________. Historische Bemerkungen zum Leben Jesu. Lebendiges Zeugnis 26 (1971): 33-46.
Pollard, T. E. The Exegesis of Scripture and the Arian Controversy. BJRL 41 (1959): 414-29.
Popkin, R. H. Spinoza and Bible Scholarship. Pages 1-20 in The Books of Nature and
Scripture. Edited by J. E. Force and R. H. Popkin. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer, 1994.
Porter, Stanley E. The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous
Discussion and New Proposals. JSNTSup 191. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000.
Powell, Mark Allan. Characterization on the Phraseological Plane in the Gospel of Matthew.
Pages 161-77 in Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies.
Edited by David R. Bauer and Mark A. Powell. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996.
________. Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from
Galilee. 2nd edition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013 (orig. 1998).
Priest, Robert D. Reading, Writing, and Religion in Nineteenth-Century France: The Popular
Reception of Renans Life of Jesus. JMH 86 (2014): 258-94.
Priestley, Joseph. A Harmony of the Evangelists in Greek; to Which are Prefixed Critical
Dissertations in English. London: J. Johnson, 1777.
Puig i Trrech, Armand. Jesus: A Biography. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011.
Risnen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. WUNT 29. Tbingen: Mohr, 1983.

483
Rau, Eckhard. Die Ablehnung Jesu durch dieses Geschlecht: Ein tiefgreifendes Ereignis in der
Sicht der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums. ETL 87 (2011): 57-87.
________. Jesu Auseinandersetzung mit Pharisern ber seine Zuwendung zu Snderinnen und
Sndern: Lk 15,11-32 und Lk 18,10-14a als Worte des historischen Jesus. ZNW 89
(1998): 5-29.
________. Jesus, Freund von Zllnern und Sndern: eine methodenkritische Untersuchung.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000.
________. Q-Forschung und Jesusforschung: Versuch eines Bruckenschlags. ETL 84 (2006):
373-403.
Rau, Eckhard, and Silke Petersen. Perspektiven des Lebens Jesu: Pladoyer fur die Anknupfung
an eine schwierige Forschungstradition. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013.
Rawlinson, A. E. J. St. Mark: with Introduction, Commentary and Additional Notes. London:
Methuen, 1925.
Reed, Jonathan L. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Reexamination of the Evidence.
Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000.
________. The Social Map of Q. Pages 17-36 in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical
and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q. Edited by John Kloppenborg. Valley Forge:
Trinity Press International, 1995.
Reibold, Wolfgang. Der lteste Bericht ber den Tod Jesu: literarische Analyse und historische
Kritik der Passionsdarstellungen der Evangelien. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1994.
Reimarus, Hermann Samuel. Fragments. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. Translated by Ralph S.
Fraser. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985.
Reinhard, F. V. Plan of the Founder of Christianity. Translated by Oliver A. Taylor from 5th
German edition. New York: G. & H. Carvill, 1831 (orig. 1781).
Reiser, Marius. Die Stellung der Evangelien in der antiken Literaturgeschichte. ZNW 90
(1999): 1-27.
________. Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish Context.
Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
________. Jesus Research from the Enlightenment until Today. Pages 93-114 in Gospel
Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Christos
Karakolis, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, and Sviatoslav Rogalsky. WUNT 288. Tbingen:
Mohr, 2012.
Renan, Ernest. The Life of Jesus. Translator not mentioned. New York: Modern Library, 1927.

484
Repschinski, Boris. Die Heidenmission in den synoptischen Evangelien. ZKT 130 (2008): 423-
44.
Reumann, John. Lives of Jesus during the Great Quest for the Historical Jesus. IJT 23 (1974):
33-59.
Reventlow, Henning Graf. Das Arsenal der Bibelkritik des Reimarus: Die Auslegung der Bibel,
insbesondere des Alten Testaments, bei den englischen Deisten. Pages 44-65 in
Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768): ein bekannter Unbekannter der Aufklarung
in Hamburg. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1973.
________. The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World. Translated by John
Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Revkin, Ellis. What Crucified Jesus. Pages 226-57 in Jesus Jewishness: Exploring the Place
of Jesus within Early Judaism. New York: Crossroad, 1991.
Rhoads, David, and Donald Michie. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a
Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.
Riches, John. Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism. New York: Seabury Press, 1982.
Riddle, Donald Wayne. The Structural Units of the Gospel Tradition. JBL 55 (1936): 45-58.
Riesenfeld, Harald. The Gospel Tradition: Essays. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.
Riesner, Rainer. From the Messianic Teacher to the Gospels of Jesus Christ. Pages 405-46
volume 1 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmn and
Stanley E. Porter. 4 volumes. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.
________. Jesus als Lehrer: eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-berlieferung.
WUNT 7. Tbingen: Mohr, 1981.
Riniker, Christian. Die Gerichtsverkndigung Jesu. Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 1999.
Ritschl, Albrecht. Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Vershnung. 3 volumes.
Bonn: A. Marcus, 1870-74.
Roberts, Michael. Biblical Epic and Rhetorical Paraphrase in Late Antiquity. ARCA 16.
Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1985.
Robertson, A.T. Epochs in the Life of Jesus: A Study of Development and Struggle in the
Messiahs Work. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1910.
Robertson, J. M. A History of Free Thought in the Nineteenth Century. 2 volumes. London:
Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1969.
Robinson, James M. The Critical Edition of Q and the Study of Jesus. Pages 27-52 in The
Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by A. Lindemann. BETL 158. Leuven:
Leuven University Press; Sterling: Peeters, 2001.

485
________. A New Quest of the Historical Jesus and Other Essays. Revised edition.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983 (orig. 1959).
________. The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays. Edited by Christoph Heil and Jozef
Verheyden. BETL 189. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005.
Robinson, James M., and Helmut Koester. Trajectories through Early Christianity. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1971.
Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, and John Kloppenborg, eds. The Critical Edition of Q.
Leuven: Peeters, 2000.
Robinson, John A. T. Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection. NTS 4 (1957): 263-81.
Rodrguez, Rafael. Authenticating Criteria: The Use and Misuse of a Critical Method. JSHJ 7
(2009): 152-67.
Rogerson, John W. W.M.L. de Wette: Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism. An Intellectual
Biography. JSOTSS 126. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
Roloff, Jrgen. Das Kergyma und der irdische Jesus. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1970.
Roth, Cecil. The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah. NovT 4 (1960): 174-81.
Rothschild, Clare K. Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian
Historiography. WUNT 175. Tbingen: Mohr, 2004.
Rouse, Mary A., and Richard H. Rouse. Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and
Their Manuscripts. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991.
Rowlingson, Donald Taggart. The Continuing Quest of the Historical Jesus. Pages 42-69 in
New Testament Studies: Critical Essays in New Testament Interpretation, with Special
Reference to the Meaning and Worth of Jesus. Edited by Edwin Prince Booth. New York;
Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1942.
Rylaarsdam, David. John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: the Coherence of His Theology and
Preaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological
Approach. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Salvatorelli, Luigi. From Locke to Reitzenstein: The Historical Investigation of the Origins of
Christianity. HTR 22 (1929): 263-369.
Sanday, William. The Life of Christ in Recent Research. New York: Oxford University Press,
1907.

486
________. Outlines of the Life of Christ. 2nd edition. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1912
(orig. 1905).

Sandeen, Ernest R. The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800-
1930. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Penguin, 1993.

________. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
________. Jesus and the Kingdom: The Restoration of Israel and the New People of God.
Pages 225-242 in Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of William R.
Farmer. Edited by E. P. Sanders. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987.
________. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE. London: SCM Press, 1992.
________. Paul: The Apostles Life, Letters, and Thought. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015.
________. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977.
________. Did Pauls Theology Develop? Pages 325-50 in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays
on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays. Edited by J. Ross
Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
________. The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1969.
Sanders E. P., and Margaret Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. London: SCM, 1989.
Sanders, Jack T. The Criterion of Coherence and the Randomness of Charisma: Poring Through
some Aporias in the Jesus Tradition. NTS 44 (1998): 1-25.
Sanders, James A. The Old Testament in 11QMelchizedek. JANESCU 5 (1973): 373-82.
Sato, Migaku. Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q.
WUNT 29. Tbingen: Mohr, 1988.
Saucy, Mark. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. Dallas: Word, 1997.
Saunders, Ernest W. Jesus in the Gospels. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
Schfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Schaper, Joachim. The Pharisees. Pages 402-27 in The Early Roman Period. Volume 3 of The
Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by William Horbury et al. Cambridge; New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Schenk, Wolfgang. Die Verwnschung der Kstenorte Q 10,13-15: Zur Funktion der konkreten
Ortsangaben und zur Lokalisierung von Q. Pages 477-90 in The Synoptic Gospels:

487
 Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism. Edited by Camille Focant. BETL 110.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993.
Schenkel, Daniel A Sketch of the Character of Jesus: A Biblical Essay. Translated from 3rd
German edition. Translator not mentioned. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1869
(orig. 1864).
Schildgen, Brenda. Power and Prejudice: The Reception of the Gospel of Mark. Detroit: Wayne
State University Press, 1999.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Jesus: An Experiment in Christology. Translated by Hubert Hoskins.
New York: Seabury Press, 1979 (orig. 1974).
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. The Life of Jesus. Edited by Jack C. Verheyden. Translated by S.
Maclean Gilmour. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975 (orig. 1864).
Schlosser, Jacques. Jsus de Nazareth. Paris: Agns Vinot ditions, 2002.
________. La parole de Jsus sur la fin du Temple. NTS 36 (1990): 398-414.
Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: literarkritische Untersuchungen zur
ltesten Jesusberlief. Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1919.
________. Jesus. Pages 110-51 in volume 3 of Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 6
volumes. Tbingen: Mohr, 1929.
Schmiedel, Otto. Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. Tbingen: Mohr, 1906.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Das Johannesevangelium. 4 volumes. HThKNT 4. Freiburg: Herder,
1965-84.
Schoeps, Hans Joachim. Aus frhchristlicher Zeit, religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen.
Tbingen: Mohr, 1950.
Schofield, Alison. The Wilderness Motif in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pages 37-54 in Israel in the
Wilderness: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions.
Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008.
Scholder, Klaus. The Birth of Modern Critical Theology: Origins and Problems of Biblical
Criticism in the Seventeenth Century. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press;
Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990 (orig. 1966).
Schrter, Jens. Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienberlieferung in
Markus, Q und Thomas. WMANT 76. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997.
________. From Jesus to the New Testament: Early Christian Theology and the Origin of the
New Testament Canon. Translated by Wayne Coppins. Waco: Baylor University Press,
2013 (orig. 2007).

488
________. Jesus of Galilee: The Role of Location in Understanding Jesus. Pages 36-55 in
Jesus Research: An International Perspective. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Petr
Pokorn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
________. Jesus of Nazareth: Jew from Galilee, Savior of the World. Translated by Wayne
Coppins and S. Brian Pounds. Baylor: Baylor University Press, 2014 (orig. 2012).
________. Markus, Q und der historische Jesus: Methodische und exegetische Erwgungen
zu den Anfngen der Rezeption der Verkndigung Jesu. ZNW 89 (1998): 173-200.
________. Zeichenhandlung angesichts des Reiches Gottes in der altesten Jesusberlieferung.
BTZ 20 (2003): 157-78.
Schulz, Siegfried. Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972.
Schrmann, Heinz. Jesus, Gestalt und Geheimnis: gesammelte Beitrge. Edited by Klaus
Scholtissek. Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1994.
________. Das Lukasevangelium. 2 volumes. HTKNT 3. Freiburg: Basel, 1969-1994.
________. Die Redekomposition wider dieses Geschlecht und seine Fhrung in der
Redenquelle (vgl. Mt 23,1-39 par Lk 11,37-54): BestandAkoluthie
Kompositionsformen. SNTSU 11 (1986): 33-81.
________.Die vorsterlichen Anfnge der Logientradition. Pages 342-70 in Der historische
Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus: Beitrge zum Christusverstndnis in Forschung
und Verkndigung. Edited by Helmut Ristow and Karl Matthiae. Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1960.
________. Wie hat Jesus seinen Tod bestanden und verstanden? Eine methodenkritische
Bessinung. Pages 325-63 in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker.
Edited by Paul Hoffmann. Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder, 1973.
Schweitzer, Albert. The Mystery of the Kingdom of God: The Secret of Jesus Messiahship and
Passion. Translated by Walter Lowrie. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1970 (orig. 1901).
________. The Psychiatric Study of Jesus, Exposition and Criticism. Translated by Charles R.
Joy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1948 (orig. 1913).
________. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Translated by W. Montgomery. New York:
Macmillan, 1955 (orig. 1906).
________. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Second Edition. Translated by W. Montgomery et
al. Edited by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001 (orig. 1913).
Schweizer, Eduard. Jesus. Translated by David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1971 (orig.
1968).

489
________. The Question of the Messianic Secret in Mark. Pages 65-74 in The Messianic
Secret. Edited by Christopher Tuckett. IRT 1. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Scobie, Charles H. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003.
Scofield, Cyrus I. The New Testament. Volume 2 of The Scofield Bible Correspondence School.
Dallas: s.n., 1907.
Scott, Bernard Brandon. Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
Scott, Bernard Brandon, ed. Jesus Reconsidered: Scholarship in the Public Eye. Santa Rosa:
Polebridge, 2007.
Scott, E. F. The Crisis in the Life of Jesus. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1952.
________. Recent Lives of Jesus. HTR 27 (1934): 1-31.
Scott, Ernest Findlay. The Ethical Teaching of Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1924.
Scroggs, Robin. Reflections on the Question: Was there a Pre-Markan Passion Narrative?
SBLSP 2 (1971): 503-85.

Seccombe, David. Luke and Isaiah. NTS 27 (1981): 252-59.

[Seeley, John]. Ecce Homo: A Survey of the Life and Work of Jesus Christ. Boston: Roberts
Brothers, 1867.
Semler, Johann. Beantwortung der Fragmente eines Ungenannten, insbesondere vom Zweck
Jesu und seiner Jnger. Halle: s.n., 1779.
Sharpe, Eric J. Comparative Religion: A History. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1975.
Sheets, Dwight D. Jesus as Demon Possessed. Pages 27-49 in Who do My Opponents Say that
I Am?: An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus. Edited by Scot
McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2008.
Shirock, R. J. The Growth of the Kingdom in Light of Israels Rejection of Jesus: Structure and
Theology in Luke 12:1-35. NovT 31 (1993): 15-29.
Shuger, Debora Kuller. The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity. Waco:
Baylor University Press, 2010.
Simon, Richard, and Andrew Hunwick. Critical History of the Text of the New Testament:
Wherein is Established the Truth of the Acts on which the Christian Religion is Based.
Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013.

490
Skelton, Philip. Deism Revealed, or, The Attack on Christianity Candidly Reviewed. 2 volumes.
2nd edition. London: A. Millar, 1751.
Smith, Barry D. Jesus Twofold Teaching about the Kingdom of God. Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix Press, 2009.
Smith, D. Moody. Jesus Tradition in the Gospel of John. Pages 1997-2040 in volume 3 of
Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmn and Stanley E.
Porter. 4 volumes. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.
Smyth, Damian Barry. The Trauma of the Cross: How the Followers of Jesus Came to
Understand the Crucifixion. New York: Paulist Press, 1999.
Snodgrass, Klyne. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Spence, Alan. Incarnation and Inspiration: John Owen and the Coherence of Christology.
London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007.
Sprinkle, Preston M. Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in
Salvation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2013.
Stalker, James. The Life of Jesus Christ. Chicago; New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1880.
Stanton, Graham N. The Gospels and Jesus. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002
(orig. 1989).
________. Jesus and the Gospel. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
________. Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet Who Deceived Gods People?
Pages 164-80 in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and
New Testament Christology. Edited by Joel B. Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1994.
________. Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching. SNTSMS 27. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Stapfer, Edmond. Jsus-Christ, sa personne, son autorit, son oeuvre. 3 volumes. Paris: Librairie
Fischbacher, 1896-98.
Steck, Odil H. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. WMANT 23. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967.
Stein, Robert H. Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1981.
________. Jesus, the Temple and the Coming Son of Man: A Commentary on Mark 13.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014.
Steinberg, S. H. Five Hundred Years of Printing. Revised edition. Bristol: Pelican Books, 1961.

491
Stephen, Leslie. History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century. 2 volumes. 3rd edition.
New York: Peter Smith, 1949.
Stettler, Christian. Das letzte Gericht: Studien zur Endgerichtserwartung von den
Schriftpropheten bis Jesus. WUNT 299. Tbingen: Mohr, 2011.
Stevens, Jennifer. The Historical Jesus and the Literary Imagination, 1860-1920. Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 2010.
Stewart-Sykes, A. Taxei in Papias: Again. JECS 3 (1995): 487-92.
Stone, Michael. Lists of Revealed Things in Apocalyptic Literature. Pages 414-52 in Magnalia
Dei, the Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G.
Ernest Wright. Edited by Frank M. Cross et al. New York: Doubleday, 1976.
Storr, Gottlob. De notione regni coelestis in N.T. Tbingen: Drucker, 1782.
Strange, James F. Archaeology and the Pharisees. Pages 237-54 in In Quest of the Historical
Pharisees. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton. Waco: Baylor University Press,
2007.
Strauss, David Friedrich. The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Translated by George Eliot from
the 4th German edition. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1902 (orig. 1835-36).
________. A New Life of Jesus. Translator not mentioned. 2 volumes. London; Edinburgh:
Williams and Norgate, 1865.
Streeter, Burnett Hillman. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan, 1924.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. The Purpose of Romans. Pages 231-42 in The Romans Debate. Edited by
Karl P. Donfried. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.
Sutcliffe, Adam. Judaism and Enlightenment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Syreeni, Kari. From Johns Ministry to the Mission of Jesus: The Question of Continuity and
Change in a Psychological Perspective. Pages 77-92 in The Mission of Jesus: Second
Nordic Symposium on the Historical Jesus, Lund, 7-10 October 2012. Edited by Samuel
Byrskog and Tobias Hgerland. WUNT 391. Tbingen: Mohr, 2015.
Tan, Kim Huat. The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.
Tannehill, Robert C. The Functions of Peters Mission Speeches in the Narrative of Acts. NTS
37 (1991): 400-14.
________. Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story. JBL 104 (1985): 69-85.
Tanner, Norman P., ed. Nicea I to Lateran V. Volume 1 of Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.
London: Sheed & Ward; Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990.

492
Tappert, Theodore ed. The Book of Concord. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959.
Trrech, Armand Puig i. Jesus: An Uncommon Journey: Studies on the Historical Jesus. WUNT
288. Tbingen: Mohr, 2010.
Tatum, W. Barnes. In Quest of Jesus: A Guidebook. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.
Taylor, Charles M. A Secular Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Taylor, Jeremy. The Life of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ. Reprint. Somerset: J & J Patton,
1818.
Taylor, Joan E. The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids;
Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997.
Taylor, Joan E. and Federico Adinolfi. John the Baptist and Jesus the Baptist: A Narrative
Critical Approach. JSHJ 10 (2012): 247-84.
Taylor, Miriam S. Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly
Consensus. Leiden; Boston: Brill: 1995.
Taylor, Vincent. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: Macmillan and Co., 1933.
________. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: Macmillan, 1952.
________. The Life and Ministry of Jesus. Nashville: Abingdon, n.d.
________. Is It Possible to Write a Life of Christ?: Some Aspects of the Modern Problem,
ExpT 53 (1941-42): 61-65.
Telford, William R. The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of
the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Marks Gospel and its Relation to the Cleansing
of the Temple Tradition. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980.
________. Major Trends and Interpretive Issues in the Study of Jesus. Pages 33-74 in
Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Edited by
Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1994.
________. The Pre-Markan Tradition in Recent Research. Pages 693-723 in volume 2 of The
Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by Frans van Segbroeck et al. 3
volumes. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.
Theissen, Gerd. Das Neue Testament. Munich: Beck, 2002.
________. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Translated by John Bowden.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.
Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The Delay of the Parousia as a Test Case for the Criterion of
Coherence. LS 32 (2007):49-66.

493
________. The Gospels in Context. London; New York: T & T Clark, 1992.
________. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Translated by John Bowden.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
________. Jesus as an Itinerant Teacher: Reflections on Social History from Jesus Roles.
Pages 98-122 in Jesus Research: An International Perspective. Edited by James H.
Charlesworth and Petr Pokorn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
________. Das Leiden und Sterben des historischen Jesus und deren Transformation in der
Passionsgeschichte. JCBS 10 (2012): 177-201.
Theissen, Gerd and Dagmar Winter. The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
Theobald, Michael. Das sogenannte johanneische Logion in der synoptischen berlieferung
(Mt 11,25-27; Lk 10,21f.) und das Vierte Evangelium: Erwgungen zum Ursprung der
johanneischen Christologie. Pages 109-33 in Studien zu Matthus und Johannes:
Festschrift fr Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Andreas Dettwiler,
Uta Poplutz, and Jean Zumstein. ATANT 97. Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009.
Thiering, Barbara. Are the Violent Ones as False Teachers? NovT 21 (1979): 293-297.
Thiselton, Anthony C. Reception Theory, H. R. Jauss and the Formative Power of Scripture.
SJT 55 (2012): 289-308.
Thoma, Clemens. Die Christen in rabbinischer Optik: Heiden, Hretiker oder Fromme?. Pages
23-49 in Christlicher Antijudaismus und jdischer Antipaganismus: Ihre Motive und
Hintergrnde in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Edited by Herbert Frohnhofen.
Hamburg: Steinmann & Steinmann, 1990.
Thompson, Thomas R. Nineteenth-Century Kenotic Christology: the Waxing, Waning, and
Weighing of a Quest for a Coherent Orthodoxy. Pages 74-111 in Exploring Kenotic
Christology: the Self-emptying of God. Edited by C. Stephen Evans. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2006.
Tdt, Heinz E. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by Dorothea M. Barton.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965 (orig. 1959).
Toland, John. Christianity Not Mysterious: or, A Treatise Shewing, That there is Nothing in the
Gospel Contrary to Reason. London: s.n., 1702.
________. Nazarenus: or, Jewish, Gentile, and Mahometan Christianity. London: J. Brown,
J. Roberts, J. Brotherson, 1718.
Tolbert, Mary Ann. Sowing the Gospel: Marks World in Literary-Historical Perspective.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

494
Trapp, John. Matthew to Revelation. Volume 5 of A Commentary on the Old and New
Testaments. Reprint. Eureka: Tanski, 1997 (orig. 1662).
Trilling, Wolfgang. Christusverkndigung in den synoptischen Evangelien. Munich: Ksel,
1969.
Trocm, tienne. Exgse scientifique et idologie: de l'cole de Tubingue aux historiens
francais des origines chrtiennes. NTS 24 (1978): 447-62.
Tuckett, Christopher. Form Criticism. Pages 21-38 in Jesus in Memory: Traditions in Oral
and Scribal Perspectives. Edited by Werner H. Kelber and Samuel Byrskog. Baylor:
Baylor University Press, 2009.
________. From the Sayings to the Gospels. WUNT 328. Tbingen: Mohr, 2014.

________. Isaiah in Q. Pages 51-62 in Isaiah in the New Testament: The New Testament and
the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. London; New
York: T & T Clark, 2005.

________. Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996.

Turner, David L. Israels Last Prophet: Jesus and the Jewish Leaders in Matthew 23.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015.
Turner, H. E. W. The Chronological Framework of the Ministry. Pages 59-74 in
Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1965.
Twelftree, Graham. Jesus the Baptist. JSHJ 7 (2009): 103-25.
________. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. WUNT 54.
Tbingen: Mohr, 1993.
________. Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical & Theological Study. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1999.
________. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.
Tyson, J. B. The Jewish Public in Luke-Acts. NTS 30 (1984): 574-83.
Tzoref, Shanai. The Use of Scripture in the Community Rule. Pages 203-34 in A Companion
to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2012.
Uro, Risto. Sheep among the Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions in Q. Helsinki:
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987.
Vaage, Leif E. Galilean Upstarts: Jesus First Followers According to Q. Valley Forge: Trinity
Press International, 1994.

495
________. The Son of Man Sayings in Q: Stratigraphical Location and Significance. Semeia
55 (1991): 103-29.
Van Belle, Gilbert. The Faith of the Galileans: The Parenthesis in Jn 4:44. ETL 74 (1998): 27-
44.
Van Os, Bas. Psychological Analyses and the Historical Jesus: New Ways to Explore Christian
Origins. LNTS 432. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2011.
Vasaly, Ann. Characterization and Complexity: Caesar, Sallust, and Livy. Pages 245-60 in The
Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historian. Edited by Andrew Feldherr. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Venturini, Karl Heinrich. Naturliche geschichte des grossen Propheten von Nazareth. 2nd
edition. 4 volumes. Copenhagen: Schubothe, 1806 (orig. 1800-02).
Verheyden, Jozef. Documenta Q: The Reconstruction of Q 22,28-30. ETL (76): 404-32.
Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historians Reading of the Gospels. London: Collins, 1973.
________. The Religion of Jesus the Jew. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Via, Dan O. The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1967.
Vgtle, Anton. Der Einzelne und die Gemeinschaft in der Stufenfolge der
Christusoffenbarung. Pages 50-91 in Sentire Ecclesiam: Das Bewutsein von der Kirche
als gestaltende Kraft der Frmmigkeit. Edited by Jean Danilou et al. Freiburg: Herder,
1961.
________. Exegetische Erwgungen ber das Wissen und Selbstbewusstein Jesu. Pages
608-67 in Gott in Welt: Festgabe fur Karl Rahner. Edited by Herbert Vorgrimler.
Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1964.
Volkmar, Gustav. Jesus Nazarenus: und die erste christliche Zeit, mit den beiden ersten
Erzhlern. Zrich: Caesar Schmidt, 1882.
Von Ammon, Christoph Friedrich. Biblische Theologie. 2nd edition. 3 volumes. Erlangen: Johann
Jakob Palm, 1801 (orig. 1801).
________. Die Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion: eine Ansicht der hheren
Dogmatik. Leipzig: Vogel, 1833.
Von Soden, Hermann Freiherr. Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu. Berlin: Alexander
Duncker, 1904.
Vouga, Franois. Le quatrime vangile comme interprte de la tradition synoptique: Jean 6.
Pages 261-79 in John and the Synoptics. Edited by Adelbert Denaux. BETL 101. Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 1992.

496
Wait, Robert. The Gospel-History, from the Text of the Four Evangelists. Edinburgh: Sands et
al., 1765.
Walker, D. P. The Decline of Hell; Seventeenth-Century Discussions of Eternal Torment.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.
Walker, W. O. The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Discussion of Methodology. ATR 51
(1969): 38-56.
Walter, Nicholas.Paulus und die urchristliche Jesustradition. NTS 31 (1985): 498-522.
Wang, Edward, and Georg G. Iggers, eds. Turning Points in Historiography: A Cross Cultural
Perspective. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2002.
Warschauer, Joseph. The Historical Life of Christ. New York: Macmillan, 1927.
Watson, Alan. Jesus and the Law. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996.
Watson, Francis. Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective. Grand Rapids; Cambridge:
Eerdmans, 2013.
Watts, Craig M. The Intention of Schleiermacher in The Life of Jesus. Encounter 46 (1985):
71-86.
Watts, Rikki E. Consolation or Confrontation? Isaiah 40-55 and the Delay of the New Exodus.
TynBul 41 (1990): 31-59.
Weaver, Walter P. The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-50. Harrisburg: Trinity
Press International, 1999.
Webb, Robert L. Jesus Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications. BBR 10 (2000): 261-309.
________. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study. JSOT 62. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.
________. Josephus on John the Baptist: Jewish Antiquities 18.116-119. Forum 2 (1999): 141-
68.
________. Methodological Reflections on John the Baptizers Influence on Jesus. Pages 769-
801 in Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions. Edited by James H.
Charlesworth and Brian Rhea. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.
Wedderburn, Alexander. The Death of Jesus: Some Reflections on Jesus-Traditions and Paul.
WUNT 299. Tbingen: Mohr, 2013.
________. Jesus and the Historians. WUNT 269. Tbingen: Mohr, 2010.
Weder, Hans. Gegenwart und Gottesherrschaft: berlegungen zum Zeitverstndnis bei Jesus
und im frhen Christentum. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993.

497
________. Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern. 3rd edition. FRLANT 120. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984 (orig. 1978).
Weeden, Theodore. Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative
Parallels and Imaginative Imitation. Forum 6 (2003): 137-341.
Wefald, Eric K. The Separate Gentile Mission in Mark: A Narrative Explanation of Markan
Geography, the Two Feeding Accounts and Exorcisms. JSNT 20 (1995): 3-26.
Weiss, Bernard. The Life of Christ. Translated by John Walter Hope. 3 volumes. Clarks Foreign
Theological Library 14-16. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1883.
Weiss, Johannes. Jesus Proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Translated by R. H. Hiers and D.
L. Holland. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971 (orig. 1982).
Weisse, Christian Herrmann. Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet.
2 volumes. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hrtel, 1838.
Weizscker, Carl. Untersuchungen ber die evangelische Geschichte: ihre Quellen und den
Gang ihrer Entwicklung. 2nd edition. Tbingen: Mohr, 1901 (orig. 1864).
Welch, Claude, trans. and ed. God and Incarnation in Mid-Nineteenth Century German
Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Wellhausen, Julius. Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien. Berlin: Reimer, 1905.
Wells, Edward. An Help for the More Easy and Clear Understanding of the Holy Scriptures:
Being the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Oxford: Theater, 1718.
Wenham, David. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995.
Wernle, P. Die synoptischen Frage. Leipzig; Tbingen: Mohr, 1899.
Westerholm, Stephen. Jesus and Scribal Authority. ConBNT 10. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1978.
Whiston, William. A Short View of the Chronology of the Old Testament, and of the Harmony of
the Four Evangelists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1702.
Wilbur, Earl M. A History of Unitarianism: Socinianism and its Antecedents. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1946.
Wilde, Oscar. The Poetical Works of Oscar Wilde. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1913.
Wilk, Florian. Jesus und die Vlker in der Sicht der Synoptiker. BZNW 109. Berlin; New York:
de Gruyter, 2002.
Willemse, J. La Patrie de Jsus selon Saint Jean. NTS 11 (1965): 349-64.

498
Williams, A. Lukyn. Adversus Judaeos: A Birds-Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the
Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935.
Williams, J. G. Neither Here Nor There: Between Wisdom and Apocalyptic in Jesus Kingdom
Sayings. Forum 5 (1989): 7-30.
Wilson, Robert R. The Prophetic Books. Pages 212-25 in The Cambridge Companion to
Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John Barton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998.
Wink, Walter. Jesus Reply to John. Forum 5 (1989): 121-27.
Winter, Dagmar. Saving the Quest for Authenticity from the Criterion of Dissimilarity: History
and Plausibility. Pages 115-131 in Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity.
Edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2012.
Winter, Paul. On the Trial of Jesus. 2nd edition. SJ 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974 (orig. 1961).
Witherington, Ben. Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1994.
Witmer, Amanda. Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context.
LNTS 429. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2014.
Witte, Johannes. Der Kommentar des Aponius zum Hohenliede. Erlangen: Junge & Sohn, 1903.
Wolter, Michael. Jesus as a Teller of Parables: On Jesus Self-Interpretation in His Parables.
Pages 123-39 in Jesus Research: An International Perspective. Edited by James H.
Charlesworth and Petr Pokorn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Wright III, Benjamin G., and Lawrence M. Wills, eds. Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and
Apocalypticism. SBLSymS 35. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
________. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013.
________. Who was Jesus? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Yoshimura, H. Did Jesus Cite Isa. 6:9-10? Jesus Saying in Mark 4:11-12 and the Islamic Idea
of Hardening and Remnant. bo: bo Akademi University Press, 2010.
Zahn, Theodor. Zur Geschichte von Tatians Diatessaron im Abendland. NKZ 5 (1894): 85-
120.
Zangenberg, Jrgen. From the Galilean Jesus to the Galilean Silence: Earliest Christianity in the
Galilee until the Fourth Century CE. Pages 75-108 in The Rise and Expansion of
Christianity in the First Three Centuries of the Common Era. Edited by Clare K.
Rothschild and Jens Schrter. WUNT 301. Tbingen: Mohr, 2013.

499
Zeller, Deiter. Jesus, Q und die Zukunft Israels. Pages 351-69 in The Sayings Source Q and the
Historical Jesus. Edited by A. Lindemann. BETL 158. Leuven: Leuven University Press;
Sterling: Peeters, 2001.
________. Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder Sitz im Leben beim Q-Material. Pages 395-
409 in Logia: Les Paroles de Jsus. Edited by Jol Delobel. BETL 59. Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 1982.
________. Die Weisheitlichen Mahnsprche bei den Synoptikern. Wrzburg: Echter, 1977.
Zimmerli, Walther. Der neue Exodus in der Verkndigung der beiden groen
Exilspropheten. Pages 192-204 in Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufstze zum Alten
Testament. Edited by Walther Zimmerli. Munich: Kaiser, 1963.
Zimmerman, Johannes. Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Knigliche, priesterliche und
prophetische Messiasvorstellung in den Schriftfunden von Qumran. WUNT 104.
Tbingen: Mohr, 1998.

500