In my last post, I asked the question, “What was Jesus about?” Meaning: What was Jesus’ life about, what was his message, what his intention? I gave an answer, but that’s all it was: one answer out of many that could have been given. And thanks to modern scholarship, that’s all we have: a multitude of answers, none of them demonstrably right.

In the old To Tell the Truth TV program, after questions and guesses from the panelists, the real John Doe or Sally Smith got up. Often, the imposters would shuffle and pretend to stand up until the genuine person finally did. But in an episode about Jesus, all we would get is the shuffling and chair movement. No one would ever actually stand up.

That isn’t to say there was no Jesus of Nazareth. There are some who believe that but I think they are wrong. That isn’t the question. Yes, there was a Jesus of Nazareth in 1^st century Palestine, but who was he? Answering that question is where we stumble. As New Testament scholar, Robert Price, says, we just have too many Jesuses.

The general public, including those in the pews (and some in the pulpits), are mostly unaware of how the traditional picture of Jesus has dissolved away like a sand castle on the beach. The waves of critical scholarship have been relentless, so that there is really nothing of Jesus left. Nothing left, that is, of which we can be reasonably certain. All we have are lots of possibilities, many of which contradict each other.

The problem is there is just so little that we really know. In recent years, archaeologists have been able to provide a reasonably good picture of what life was like at that time in that part of the world. But trying to get information about a specific person from that time is another question altogether. Even for the “great people” like rulers and warriors, hard information is spotty, and often unreliable because so much written about them was propaganda, both positive and negative.

The problem with studying Jesus is that he was an insignificant person who became famous decades later. It’s now widely accepted that we have no record of anything about Jesus from his lifetime. This includes having nothing from anyone who actually knew Jesus. Mark, the earliest canonical gospel, is dated to at least forty years after Jesus’ death and none of the gospels are now viewed as having any first-hand information about Jesus.

It seems strange to us that even Jesus’ own followers apparently wrote nothing down about his life. But that’s only half of it—it also seems that no one actually cared. The earliest writings we have dealing with Jesus (and pre-dating the gospels) are the authentic letters of Paul. By his own admission, Paul never met Jesus, but his visionary experience of the risen Jesus led him to view Jesus as the most important person in history.

Despite that, Paul shows no interest in or knowledge of anything Jesus said or did. This despite knowing Peter, and likely James, Jesus’ brother. The only thing Jesus did that was important, in Paul’s view, was being crucified, raised, and ascended to heaven, at which point he became the savior of the world. And he says he knows this, not from personal experience or from being told it by others, but from some kind of heavenly revelation.

The more one tries to make a connection between Paul and the historical Jesus, the stranger it gets. But that’s not all. It’s now widely accepted that the earliest remembrances of Jesus were not events from his life but his teachings and sayings.

New Testament scholars generally agree that Matthew and Luke both include such a written collection, commonly called the “Q gospel.” This hypothetical source got a boost in its authenticity with the discovery of the gospel of Thomas in 1945. As Q is presumed to be, Thomas is a collection of teachings of Jesus, with almost nothing about his life, including his crucifixion and resurrection. Thus, the most important thing for Paul is completely absent from Thomas, and the most important thing for Thomas is absent from Paul’s writings. Put these two sources side-by-side and you have to wonder if they’re talking about the same person.

The first account we have of events from Jesus’ life is the gospel of Mark, likely written just after the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE. What is the source, or sources, of Mark’s information? We don’t know and Mark doesn’t tell us. Could Mark have had a first-hand source? It’s theoretically possible but seems unlikely. Plus, forty years is a long time in the ancient world, especially in the chaotic wake of the first Roman-Jewish War.

Matthew and Luke, thought to be written 15-25 years after Mark, both use Mark as the basis of their gospels. What they each add to Mark’s text are mostly sayings of Jesus from Q, often individually edited. They also include a few unique stories, such as those surrounding Jesus’ birth. What’s most significant, though, is that they both accept Mark’s basic story about Jesus, for which we have no corroborating evidence.

This takes on more importance when we consider the gospel of John, the last canonical gospel to be written, which clearly does not use Mark for its structure. Indeed, it tells a significantly different story about Jesus from the three “synoptic” gospels. There are some connecting points but not many. The most obvious is Jesus’ crucifixion, but again John’s account is very different from that of the other gospels. What is the source of John’s version of Jesus’ life, coming likely seventy years after the event? Again, we don’t know and John does not tell us.

One obvious explanation about the gospels’ Jesus stories, and some have come to this conclusion, is that they made it all up. And frankly, that may not be far off. One thing modern gospel scholars have come to realize is that the structure and themes of the gospels are very similar to hero stories popular in the ancient world. In addition, much of the material in the gospels have clear parallels with stories and passages in the Old Testament. Many of these texts are ones that were used in the Jewish lectionary, the schedule of readings in worship for the liturgical year. It’s easy to imagine that new versions of such stories involving Jesus were developed as readings in early Christian worshiping communities.

But one can’t avoid the conclusion that historical accuracy was not a concern for the gospel writers. Most likely it couldn’t be because they didn’t have the information. So, the difficult conclusion (for Christians) is that when the gospels began to be written, probably no one knew Jesus’ “story.”

Why didn’t anyone alive at the time write some account of Jesus’ life? Probably because, like Paul, no one thought it was important. What was important? For some, like Paul, it was Jesus’ death and resurrection. For others, it was Jesus’ teachings. What perhaps everyone agreed on was that Jesus was the harbinger of a cataclysmic event soon to come. This would be the end of the world as they knew it and the coming of a new world, the kingdom of God, with the returning Christ as Lord.

It has to be said that we know very little about what was happening among Jesus’ followers in the first decades after his death. And the bits and pieces we do have do not easily combine into a coherent picture. This is most likely the case because different things were happening in different places. Some viewed Jesus as essentially a reformer of Judaism (James & Matthew). Others emphasized the welcome of gentiles into this new covenant community (Paul & Luke). Another group believed Jesus taught a way of spiritual enlightenment and rebirth (John & Thomas).

In any case, these were all thought to be short term projects until Christ’s return. Then came the Jewish Roman War. No doubt many early Christians thought this was the beginning of the end. After a long siege, Jerusalem’s walls were breached, the city sacked, and the temple destroyed. But Jesus didn’t come back.

Paul’s letters (mostly written in the 50s) indicate he believed the risen Jesus would return in his lifetime or very soon after. Mark, likely written immediately after Jerusalem’s destruction (70), also seems to believe Jesus is returning very soon. As time goes on, however, that belief wanes among early Christians.

Matthew and Luke (85-95) both seem to be dampening down that expectation. John (100) postpones it indefinitely and has Jesus say to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” In Thomas, Jesus rejects expectations of a coming kingdom because, he says, the “kingdom of the Father” is already here.

What did Jesus believe? What did he say? Since the publication in 1906 of Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus, the most prevalent view among New Testament scholars has been that Jesus expected a cataclysmic coming of God’s kingdom in his lifetime, and that he was the prophetic harbinger of that event. But he was wrong, and therefore died as a failed prophet. Not surprisingly, in reaction to his own conclusion, Schweitzer quit theology and began is famous medical career in Africa.

My sense is that, while this is the single largest group, scholars holding this view are in the minority. What do the majority think? They don’t, at least not about this topic. Coming up with a comprehensive view of Jesus’ beliefs and teaching has been largely abandoned as an impossible task. Or, if they were frank, one that would lead to an unacceptable conclusion, as it did for Schweitzer.

Who was Jesus of Nazareth? Does it matter? Perhaps not. Biography is always a challenge. Scholars debate endlessly even recent figures for whom there is ample evidence. Biographies of Lincoln, for example, could fill a library. But the historical data for Jesus is slim indeed and it is unlikely we will ever have a clear and supportable picture of him. Who or what Jesus truly was will forever remain an enigma and a mystery.

Nonetheless, Jesus remains one of the most recognized human symbols of all time. And symbols are important. The problem today is that the meaning of the “Jesus symbol” is all over the map. He is viewed as everything from a neo-Marxist jungle revolutionary to a Rambo-like neo-fascist storm trooper. In between and far from those extremes is the Jesus of the creeds and personal faith. But it’s this Jesus that has been most battered by modern times, both by the work of biblical scholars and by a culture that finds this Jesus unbelievable and/or irrelevant.

Can Jesus be saved? Is there a way to make Jesus an important and relevant figure for today? I think there is and in my concluding post I will try to give at least a sketch of such a Jesus. From my observations, this Jesus is already familiar and significant to many people. It is not, however, the Jesus officially recognized by churches. Nor is it the Jesus very often preached about, though he is sometimes. In any case, I believe the fact that Jesus has hung around this long means there must be something here that’s worth remembering, saving, and learning from.

If you appreciate these posts, remember to “Like”, share, and subscribe, if you haven’t done so already. In the mystical world of search algorithms, this all helps “spread the word.” And add a comment, if you’re so moved, to be part of the conversation. Finally, thank you for your financial support (see the “DONATE” box), which covers blog expenses and helps me to keep doing this.