Reddit mentions of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Vol. 1

The apocalyptic prophet model first came into vogue with Albert Schweitzer's seminal Quest for the Historical Jesus in 1906. It has become the majority view in modern critical scholarship (though not a universal one). basically it's the view that Jesus is best understood as a prophet who was predicting an imminent and radical intervention of God into the natural world. Jesus framed this intervention as a coming "kingdom" and believed (according to this theory) that basically God was going to come and smite the enemies of Israel, restore the Davidic monarchy and initiate the Messianic age. He thought this was literally going to happen within his own generation, so basically (to put it bluntly), the theory is that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet,

Some major scholars who defend this view include Bart Ehrman (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium) E. P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus, JP Meiers' massive Marginal Jew series, Dale Allison (Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet), and Paula Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. There are many others.

There are some who propose other views, though, like the Zealot theory already mentioned, and the "Sapiential Kingdom" (basically Jesus as a wisdom teacher and social transformer) proposed by Crossan and Funk.

I can't say that I'm familiar with the writings about Romulus, Asclepius, or Hercules; however, the Gospels seem (at least in their final form) to be written and redacted by people who were trying to portray a somewhat historically accurate picture of Jesus of Nazareth. Whether they are wholly or in part actually historically accurate is a totally different question, which I won't delve into here. The genre of the Gospels is sometimes referred to as a subset of Greco-Roman Biography or of Ancient Biography or simply of ancient Lives (βίοι, bioi; vitae) writings.^1



Ancient Biography^2 | Gospels^2
---|---
In ancient biographies, the subject’s name is listed at the very beginning of the text or immediately following the prologue. | All four Gospels mention the name of their subject (Jesus) in or directly after the prologue (though they lack a formal title signaling that they are ancient biographies).
Authors of ancient biographies could present the subject’s words either chronologically or topically. They could also highlight one time period of the subject’s life over and above others (e.g., a particular battle, time in office, death, etc.).| The Gospels aren't too concerned with the chronology of Jesus' life/teaching. Each of the Gospels devotes a considerable amount of attention to Jesus’ death, which aligns with ancient biographers’ tendency to devote more attention to the events or attributes that they believed best portrayed their subject.
Authors of ancient biographies maintained a singular focus on the subject (unlike ancient historiographers, who could offer treatments of several key characters). The individual focused on in the biography was the subject of the verb more than any other character. | Jesus is the subject of the verb in the Gospels far more often than any other individual.
Ancient biographies were typically written in narrative form and typically ranged from 5,000–25,000 words. | The Gospels were written in narrative form and fall within the 5,000–25,000 word count common to ancient biographies.
Ancient biographies were often framed by the birth and death of the individual (although some could start at adulthood) and then filled out with various stories, speeches, or actions from the life of the subject. | Two of the Gospels (Matthew and Luke) open with the narration of Jesus’ birth, while the other two begin in His adult ministry.
Authors of ancient biographies predominantly highlighted specific character traits of their subjects through the inclusion of a subject’s words and deeds, rather than direct analysis or commentary. | The bulk of the narrative is composed of miracle stories, discourses on various topics, sayings, and parables that contribute to the author’s portrayal of Jesus.
Authors of ancient biographies often used a wide variety of both oral and written sources and had greater freedom than historiographers in deciding which information to include or exclude. | The Gospel writers seem to have used a variety of sources in composing their Gospels.
The authors of ancient biographies deployed a range of styles in their writing—from formal to more popular literature—and wrote in both serious and light tones. | The Gospels have a serious tone, and the writers predominantly used a simplistic or popular writing style.
Most ancient biographies cast their subject in a positive light. In some cases the portrayals seem too positive, which makes the characterization seem contrived or stereotypical. | The writers of the four Gospels cast Jesus in a positive light and exhibit the same intentions or purposes for writing as other authors of ancient biographies.

If I understand the Greco-Roman Biography genre correctly, they were normally intended by their authors to be historically factual, but often integrated with ideology (or in the case of the Gospels, theology). The important thing to note is that they didn't pen history or biography in the same way moderns do. They took certain liberties in their telling of the story of someone's life. We wouldn't always see that as a responsible way to do history, but they didn't have the same concept of historiography as us moderns. Furthermore, I'd like to quote at length from Brant Pitre^3 regarding Jesus quotes and gospel/historical Jesus research:

> First, with reference in particular to the sayings of Jesus, it is important to be precise about what I mean when I speak about the "historicity" or "historical plausibility."
> On the one hand, there are some readers of the Gospels who come to them looking for the ipsissima verb Jesu (the "exact words of Jesus"). As contemporary scholarship rightly insists, rarely, if ever, is it possible for us to reconstruct the exact words of Jesus.^4 Indeed, as even a cursory comparison of the sayings of Jesus in a Gospel synopsis shows, on many occasions, the evangelists themselves do not seem bent on giving us anything like the exact words of Jesus.^5 ... On the other hand, it is much more popular in the scholarly realm to come to the Gospels seeking the ipsissima vox Jesu, an expression sometimes used to refer to "the basic message of Jesus" or "the 'kind of thing' he usually or typically said."^6 Although at first glance this may seem like a more helpful formulation, upon further reflection, there are several problems with it. For one thing, "the exact voice of Jesus" (ipsissima vox Jesu) reflects the peculiarly modern preoccupation with exactitude (ipse), and hence smacks both of historical positivism and philosophical foundationalism. Moreover, the emphasis on the exact "voice" (vox) of Jesus is precisely the wrong emphasis. The image of a "voice" lends itself to a focus on how someone sounds (form), rather than what someone says (content), for a "voice" can be completely without substance or meaning... However, for historical research, a case can be made that it is not so much the form of Jesus' teaching that is most important, but the content or substance... Once again, even a quick glance at any Synopsis of the Gospels should show us that a representation of the exact forms of Jesus' sayings does not seem to have been a primary goal of the evangelists.^7 ...
> In this study, I will be pursuing what I would like to refer to as the substantia verb Jesu—i.e., the substance of the words of Jesus. In other words, I am interested in what he said and did and what it might have meant in a first-century Jewish context. Hence, 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 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.^8 That is what I mean by historical — no more, and no less.^9


[Edit: I'd like to say that /u/Nadarama and /u/o_kosmos have great points against what I've presented here. I wish I had time to give each the response it deserves, but right now I don't, so I apologize. What I will say is this: the view I've presented is one popular theory among scholars, but is not without its problems. If I understand correctly, its something of a majority view, but I'm open to being corrected on that. Its certainly no "scholarly consensus," if such a thing can be found.]

***

1. See David Aune, Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres (Atlanta: SBL, 1988), 107 and Burridge, R. A. “Gospel: Genre” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 335-343.
   
2. Adapted from Edward T. Wright, “Ancient Biography,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
   
3. Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 46-47.
   
4. E.g., Geza Vermes, Jesus in His Jewish Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 74.
   
5. Emphasis mine
   
6. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:174
   
7. Emphasis mine
   
8. Emphasis mine
   
9. See Theissen and Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 197-99.

> hard from an intellectual point of view

I'm sorry, I had to snicker when I read this. There is no other organization that has more intellectual underpinnings than the Catholic Church.

If you are having problems reconciling Scripture (exegetically or hermeneutically), you need to start reading academic books, such as those by Brown, Meier, Gonzalez, and Martos, just to name a few.

Helpful for me was Thomism and modern Thomists such as Feser.

> We're not altogether sure Jesus was historical...

Are you a mythicist? Who are the "We" you are referring to?

Furthermore, the most scholarly treatment of the historical Jesus that is available to date is written by John P. Meier and is entitled: A Marginal Jew.

>If you aren't arguing for the sake of arguing you could simply concede on it since while I can give references, you can not.

What? Specifically, I was laughing at you for claiming the Trinity had been named before Tertullian. I figured this must be a wikipedia thing and I was right, lol. Theophilus did not use the Trinity to refer to God; you're just arguing to argue and your "source" is a wiki. Pick up a book or two

>I demonstrate it within a century (withing 50 years by some accounts) and now you retreat

No, you didn't demonstrate this. At all. Not even close.

No goalpost has been moved, the concept of the Trinity did not exist in Jesus' time, and it wasn't considered orthodox until hundreds of years after Jesus' death. These are demonstrable facts regardless of the proto-orthodox theologians you dredge up.

>It shows itself in the baptismal formula in Matthew which is arguably the lowest Christology of the 4 gospels

lol, congratulations, you've just displayed your ignorance; the correct answer is "Mark". This is a no-brainer, you'd learn this in your first year in seminary school. Now I feel a little bad for picking on you.

Besides, any student would know the end of Matthew is a later [addition]. Just like the end of Mark, people liked to add things.

>Your argument is worthless and void of all but hand-waving which is a frequent hallmark of those who derive their arguments from the Watchtower.

Dude, what is it with this weird fascination with the watchtower. That would be like me saying you were getting your information from the Qu'ran. I told you, I'm an atheist and what I'm talking about is based on scholarly consensus.

You don't even know enough to be in this discussion, so as I said I feel kinda bad. I made the assumption that you knew the context of what I was saying but had chosen to disagree with it. Now I know you simply aren't following at all.

Here's a decent book to get your started. It's got great sections on higher criticism and touches on some Christology, so it might get you pointed in the right direction:

http://www.amazon.com/Marginal-Jew-Rethinking-Historical-Problem/dp/0385264259

John P. Meier is a Catholic scholar, btw...

I really like this trilogy of books about Jesus for the history

and I like this trilogy about him theologically