1.

Origin and formative forces

J. comes from a Jewish family, commonly considered Davidic (father Joseph, mother Maria or
Mirjam; apart from his sisters, four brothers Mk 6:3 are mentioned by name, among them Jacobus,
later of importance to the religious community of Jerusalem). The Greek name /Isos is, in
the LXX, a rendition of the Hebrew Y hua (JHWH helps) as well as of the later form Yua
and was, until the 2nd cent. AD, common among Jews. Born perhaps before 4 BC (in the lifetime
of Herod [1] the Great, if Mt 2/Lc 1:5 are historical; but this stands in contrast to the census under
irinius in the province of Judaea mentioned in Lc 2:1, which did not take place before AD 6,
more likely later), J. grew up in Galilaea, in or near Nazareth (Mk 6:1 his home town; therefore in
the Gospels and elsewhere, in order to distinguish him from others with the same name, .
/Nazarns or / Nazraos; also J. of Nazareth). Aramaic was the colloquial
language in Galilaea at the time of J.; Hebrew was the holy language or the language of the
religious doctrine, hence it can be assumed that J. had knowledge of Hebrew. Knowledge of Greek
is improbable. Hebrew and knowledge of the Bible and of religious traditions were probably
taught to Jesus by his father, like to so many other children (or maybe in school); further learning,
as for example had by Iosephus, who was a member of the priestly aristocracy, must be excluded.
According to Mk 6:3, J. was, like his father, tktn, i.e. a building craftsman (Mt 13:55), which
classifies him socially as part of the underclass and economically as part of the relatively poor
(pntes), but not of the destitute (ptcho).
The character of Judaism in the land of Israel was, at the time of J., shaped on the one hand by
common institutions (temple, Synagogue, house), convictions ( Monotheism, chosenness, Torah)
and practices (temple cult, circumcision, Sabbath, Torah study, meal- and purity regulations), and,
on the other hand, by a plurality of groups ( Pharisees, Sadducees, mran-Essenes, propheticcharismatic groups etc.). These groups interpreted the common characteristics of identity
differently and controversially, also depending on their socio-economic position. J.'s Galilean
context was part of this common Judaism [16] and its pluralism. He was hardly the Hellenisticurban type, rather conservative-Jewish and rural; the more markedly Hellenistic cities of
Sepphoris and Tiberias, for example, are not places where J. was influential. Just as implausible,
for the same reason, is J.'s characterization as a Jewish Cynic, who combined wisdom with magic
[7. 119ff.; 553f.], or his designation as a marginal Jew [14]. The travelling activity connected with
his public appearances (according to Lc 3:23 in his 30th year) is to be connected with the specific
type of his movement, to be characterized in socio-religious terms as Charismatism [22. 171ff.;
23. 175ff.]. This character is typical of socio-economic crises and related crises of traditional
beliefs and practices. J.'s most formative influence constituted the priest John the Baptist, who had
created a messianic-prophetic penitence movement, following a biblical Moses-Elijah typology.
His expectation of a radical final judgement, when only those symbolically cleansed of their sins
by a baptism in the river Jordan would be saved (Mt 3:7ff./Lc 3:7ff.), adopts early Jewishapocalyptic concepts. His ascetic lifestyle, together with a close discipleship, to which J. belonged,
as well (according to Jo 3:22ff., J. even assisted the Baptist), points to mobilization of the masses
and criticism of authority (Mk 6:17f.: criticism of the forbidden interfamily marriage of Herodes
Antipas). All this reveals charismatic traits. Other influences on J., especially the Pharisean
interpretation of the Torah, were most likely communicated by the broad effect of these groups,
an effect that was particularly strong in the case of the Pharisees.

Stegemann, Ekkehard (Basle)

[German version]

2. Basic traits of his deeds and teachings

J.'s public appearance - probably immediately after the martyrdom of the Baptist (Mk 1:14) - is
associated with the manifestation of charismatic powers of healing (dynmeis: Mk 6:2. 5. 14 et
passim), especially exorcisms (Mk 1:21ff. et passim), which are considered proof of his divinely
legitimated mission and power (exousa: Mk 1:22 et passim). Insofar, J.'s proximity to
thaumaturgical healers has rightly been emphasised, in recent times, against the stylization of J.
as eschatological preacher predominant in Protestant research (as again recently [17]). Decisive is,
however, that he unfolds these unusual powers in the context of a charismatic, itinerant, noneconomic and non-family-oriented (probably also sexually ascetic) movement of close disciples
and a wider range of followers, and that he prophetically and apocalyptically interprets them as a
partial and contemporary presence of the Kingdom of God.
The Gospels connect J.'s appearance from the beginning on with the summoning of disciples as
followers (Mk 1:16ff.), the core group may have come from the followers of the Baptist (Jo 1:35ff.).
Many of them were fishermen from the northern shore of Lake Genezareth, and so from the lower
class as well. Together with J. they formed a community of life and fate and participated in his
charismatic healings (Mk 6:7ff.). This implies leaving their families - and for the duration also
their wives - and living a vagabond's lifestyle in poverty, corresponding to the self-stigmatization
of charismatic movements, as described in religious-sociological studies. If J. himself created a
circle of twelve, then this would represent the eschatologically restored twelve tribes of Israel. A
wider range of followers, most of whom remained sedentary, but who provided new followers as
well, supported the immediate discipleship as patrons; they also included women (Mk 15:40f.; Lc
8:2f.). Often, a women-friendly, emancipatory tendency of the Jesus movement is assumed. [18].
Its egalitarian traits, however, are primarily due to its charismatism.
With the keyword Kingdom of God or Gods Reign (basilea tou theo) J. accentuates in his
preaching, and especially with allegories, the new situation in the eschatological drama as
opposed to John. This apocalyptical horizon of J.'s Gospel has again been controversial as of late,
particularly among representatives of the third quest, mainly due to the preference for the
(Gnostic) Gospel of Thomas [4; 7], but not rightly so. For the inclusion of J.'s proclamation of the
Kingdom of God into an apocalyptical context, particularly its association with his preaching of
the Last Judgement, can hardly be considered a mere retrospective Christian interpretation. J.
explains his charismatic healings as partial and contemporary presence of the apocalyptic
Kingdom of God (Mt 12:28/Lc 11:20), which has come closer, but remains by and large in the
future (Mt 6:11; Lc 11:2f. et passim). The keyword is prepared in the Bible, and otherwise only
occurs in post-biblical Jewish writings. It obviously represents a symbol of a divine (ideal) reign,
which can be actualized in times of crisis, in which the evil powers have been defeated and
hardship and deprivation of any kind have been abolished. The destitute and needy, as well as the
(orphaned) children, who are awarded Gods Kingdom unconditionally (Lc 6:20f.; Mk 9:33ff.;
10:14f.), are considered the core of the eschatological collection of Gods people. This shows J.'s
claim to be the agent and enforcer of a Kingdom of God, destined to heal the Jewish society of
poverty, economic and religious hardship. This corresponds to social-integrative behaviour as

shown by his meals together with sinners and tax collectors (Mk 2:13ff.). In allegories (Lc 15:1ff.;
Mt 20:1ff.) he defends this against criticism. Although starting points may be found here for the
later spreading of the belief in Christ among non-Jews in the Mediterranean centres, these
peoples appear in J.'s apocalyptical concept only marginally, not programmatically.
J. does not fundamentally question the institutions, basic beliefs or common practices of Judaism.
Certainly there is criticism, such as of the events in the temple, connected possibly with
prophecies of disaster and divine punishment (Mk 11:1ff.; 14:58). There is also a partially differing
interpretation of the Torah, especially of the Sabbath Halakhah (the Pharisean principle that
mortal danger overrides the Sabbath is extended to the emergency of hunger: Mk 2:23ff. et
passim), the right to divorce (similar to the Pharisean school of Shammai, divorce is only allowed
in case of adultery: Mt 5:32 et passim) and the meal and purity regulations (ethical purity of the
heart prevails over ritual purity: Mk 7:1ff.). Also radicalized, in accordance with the socialintegrative trait of J.'s teachings, are the traditional commands of solidarity of Judaism (brotherly
love, also towards the enemy, renunciation of violence, duty to reconciliation, debt relief: Lc 6:2049/Mt 5-7). A discussion of the power-political and socio-economic problems is missing, as is a
criticism ofthe Jewish elite. Rich people are criticized wholesale. Conflicts with Pharisees,
Sadducees and scholars are, when not retrojections from later Christian-Jewish conflicts,
motivated by differing interpretations of basic beliefs and practices of Judaism.
Stegemann, Ekkehard (Basle)
[German version]

3. The fate of Jesus

J.'s end in Jerusalem stands in the context of a traditional exercise in piety, the pilgrimage of
Passover. The representations of the Passion are, in part, contradictory, the assumptions regarding
older traditions behind them exceedingly hypothetical. It is more than likely that tendentious
retrojections from experiences of conflict in later times shape these representations, with
apologetical interests in the defence against Roman criminalization of Christians being at play.
The only fact to be considered as certain is that J., in a Roman trial, ( coercitio ), was judged and
executed by crucifixion, as was usual for provincials, at the hands of the prefect Pontius Pilate,
present in Jerusalem because of the pilgrimage festival, charged as rebel (robber) or (bandit) antiking (title on the Cross: King of the Jews). An antecedent Jewish process (before the
Synhedrion) must be excluded, any Jewish involvement, even on a semi-official level, is unlikely
[6; 8]. As for the dating of the day of his death, the Gospels agree insofar as they name the same
day of the week (Friday). It is contentious whether this was the eve of Passover (14th Nisah, as in
Jo 18:28; 19:31) or the first day of Passover (15th Nisah, as in the synoptic gospels). The dating of
the year of death varies accordingly. It must have been during the tenure of the prefect Pontius
Pilate (AD 27-34). The chronology of John suggests the year 30 (nowadays commonly considered
as the year of his death) or 33, the synoptic chronology AD 27 or 34 [23. 152ff.].

C. Jesus Christ: Oldest Christology

As an apocalyptic-charismatic movement, J.'s appearances claim a mission from beginning on: he
has been sent as the authorized executor of the apocalyptic Reign of God. Accordingly, the

keyword belief in the synoptic tradition is to be connected with the miracle tradition: belief
means to consider J. capable of the charismatic healing powers, which he has as proof of the
coming of the apocalyptic Kingdom. J. possibly considered himself a prophet. He probably also
expected his own martyrdom, given the fate of his teacher, admittedly - if the tradition of the
Lord's supper is authentic - in connection with the expectation that his death would play a part in
the history of salvation, leading to the establishment of the Kingdom of God amongst his
followers (cf. 1 Cor 11:23ff.; Mk 14:22ff.; Mt 26:26ff.). Not very likely but controversial is the
question of whether he understood himself as Messiah/Anointed, in the sense of the expectation
of an ideal ruler in the Davidic line. There are many arguments in favour of the fact that this
interpretation was only applied to him after his execution as King of the Jews, and only in
connection with a series of other messianic expectations (especially the one of a Son of Man).
Certainly historical is the fact that, soon after the execution of J., numerous visionary experiences
occurred among his disciples and followers (1 Xor 15,3ff.), which, because they were considered
appearances from heaven, were interpreted to the effect that the dead J. had been resurrected and
taken-up to Heaven. This interpretation is based upon the Jewish theology of martyrdom. At the
same time it unfolds the apocalyptic self-image even further, insofar as it associates the ascent to
heaven with the institution of the position of a heavenly ruler as Son of God and Kyrios (Rom
1:3ff.). According to the oldest synoptic tradition, J. is also attributed the role of Son of Man, a
heavenly figure, who is, according to Jewish apocalyptics (Ethiopian Hen 37-71; 4 Ezra 13
adopting the metaphorical tradition of the Son of Man in Dan 7) the communicator of the
apocalyptic judgement and of the salvation coming from heaven, as well as the leader of the
heavenly army (Ethiopian Hen 48,10; 52,4 also identifies him as the Messiah). It is controversial
whether J. himself referred or related to such a figure [23. 447ff.]. In any case, all titles applied to J.
stand in the context of a messianic-apocalyptic interpretation according to which his earthly
appearance and fate are part of an apocalyptic initiative of Salvation by God, ending with the
early arrival of the resurrected J. as ruler. Accordingly, J. is integrated early on (Phil 2,6ff.) in an
extensive conceptual framework, based on which he was sent to earth for Salvation as the preexisting Son of God, then returned to heaven after his (expiatory) death, where he stands by for
the consummation as eschatological Judge, Saviour and Ruler. This Christological development is
connected, in religious-sociological terms, with the depersonalization of the charisma in the Jesusmovement and contains, at the same time, elements of universalization, which favoured its
spreading to the urban centres of the Mediterranean.