What do you think?
Rate this book
The Historical Figure of Jesus
A biography of the historical figure of Jesus. The book studies the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, distinguishing the certain from the improbable, and assessing the historical and religious context of Christ's time. The spread of Christianity is also discussed.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
139 people are currently reading
1460 people want to read
About the author
E.P. Sanders
22 books71 followersEd Parish Sanders is a New Testament scholar, and is one of the principal proponents of the New Perspective on Paul. He has been Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University, North Carolina, since 1990. He retired in 2005
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
December 22, 2010
random thoughts:
-for Sanders, Jesus was (and this is not surprising to anyone who has read his other works on Jesus and Paul) very much a faithful, observant Jew; I largely agree; the conflicts with the Pharisees seem, when actually read in context, fairly minor in and of themselves, though the gospel writers tend to exaggerate the conflicts (probably due in large part to the fact that, at the time that the gospels were written, there was a substantial rift between rabbinic Judaism, which was the successor of the Pharisees, and Christianity); I think that the consensus of most modern scholars is that Jesus certainly lived and died as a practicing, observant Jew
-like Schweitzer before him, Sanders sees Jesus largely as an apocalyptic prophet; here again, I think Sanders is on the mark; the oldest parts of the New Testament (Paul's letters, Q, and Mark) all give clear indications that Jesus thought that the kingdom was coming soon, and Jesus, according to Sanders (and, I think, a fairly plain reading of the text) saw himself as pivotal to ushering in the kingdom
-Sanders spends much time discussing Jesus's major teaching in Mark: the kingdom of God, but Sanders is hard pressed to say exactly what Jesus meant by this term; he admits that the sayings on this matter are just not clear; his skepticism, I believe, is quite warranted; at times, it appears that the kingdom is a place here and now on earth where humans can live a new life in relationship to God the father; at other times, it seems that the kingdom is something that has not yet come (though it is coming soon) and which will bring about a new rule of the justice of God; many of the kingdom saying are enigmatic or are in parable form and open to a wide variety of translations, so I very much respect Sanders's reticence in this matter
-Sanders never once mentions Q, and I think he gives rather short shrift to the Q material: he does not really analyze any of the ethical teachings from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew)/Plain (Luke) other than a brief discussion about Jesus's prohibition of divorce; similarly, many of the Q parables (and a few of the stand alone Lukan parables) are completely passed over by Sanders; as a result, the ethics of Jesus are not really examined in any great detail; I think that this results in a Jesus who is almost completely an apocalyptic prophet (and I don't disagree that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet) and not much of a teacher of ethics which, if the Q material really does go back to the historical Jesus (and I think most scholars believe that it does, and I am inclined to agree), then ethics were, along with his apocalypticism, a key element of his message
-the preceding thoughts notwithstanding, Sanders does have an excellent discussion of exactly who the "sinners" were that Jesus saw himself as called to preach to: sinners were not people who merely had sinned but not yet offered the proper sacrifices and been cleansed; rather, Sanders argues, sinners were those who lived outside the law: they were the tax collectors and prostitutes and lepers, those with whom most Jews would not associate; Sanders argues that Jesus envisions bringing these people into the kingdom which he proclaims, and what is really radical is that Jesus invites these people in without demanding that they observe any of the cultic rites of purification; instead, according to Sanders, Jesus grants these people admittance to the kingdom solely on the basis of Jesus's own authority; this Sanders sees as unique; this is something that Sanders believes really sets Jesus apart from all the other prophets and reformers of his time; while I am much attracted to this idea of Jesus and while I fully grant that such a view of Jesus is certainly possible, I don't think that the textual evidence is that strong: there are just not enough references to "sinners" as a general category to ascertain just who is and who is not a sinner and exactly what qualifies one as a sinner, but I do agree that Jesus saw a primary part of his mission as bringing sinners into the kingdom
-Sanders assessment of passion week is excellent scholarship; he shows why and how Jesus was executed: Jesus's disruption of the temple was an acted parable, showing that the temple was going to be destroyed; Sanders argues that we can take the text here quite frankly: Jesus was not himself threatening (as some witnesses claimed) to destroy the temple himself, but he did believe that the temple was going to be destroyed by God; nevertheless, Caiaphas, who had as one of his main duties maintaining peace and order in Jerusalem, perceived Jesus as threatening the temple and as someone who could possibly instigate a riot, which could result in negative repercussions from the Romans, so Caiaphas arrested Jesus; because Caiaphas did not have the authority to execute Jesus, he handed him over to Pilate; Sanders argues that Pilate did not hesitate to execute Jesus; the gospels' attempts to exonerate Pilate appear to be attempts to make Christianity more palatable to its Roman rulers, and Pilate, as we know from other sources, was a brutal ruler who executed many Jews with little provocation; here again, I find myself agreeing completely with Sanders; I think that Sanders's portrayal of Jesus's arrest, trial (such it was: it was probably little more than a reading of the charges against Jesus and the passing of his death sentence), and execution is as close to historically accurate as can be
-Sanders has a few comments about the resurrection accounts; he states that the accounts are so confused (Jesus appears to different people in different places and in different time sequences) among the gospels and Paul's account that it is impossible to do draw any substantive conclusions from textual analysis; Sanders also focuses on the fact that all of the appearances seem to indicate clearly that this was not merely a resuscitation of Jesus's body: for example, if Jesus had been simply raised from the dead in his same physical body, why did some of his followers have trouble recognizing him, and why could he appear and disappear and pass through walls, which a physical body could not do, and why does Paul equate his own experience of the resurrection (clearly a visionary experience) as being equal to that of Peter and the other disciples (if Paul's experience was a visionary experience and it was like that of Peter and the other disciples, wouldn't that mean that their experiences were also visionary?)? Sanders, ever the careful historian, refuses to speculate on what the exact nature of the resurrection experiences were, but it is clear that he does not believe that it was simply the physical resuscitation of Jesus’s corpse
-all in all, this is a very careful historical and textual analysis; it lacks the depth of sociological, cultural, and political analysis that one finds in say, JD Crossan, but it is still a rather thorough and, I think, excellent analysis, and Sanders avoids the all too common and all too often referenced (and yet I am referencing it again) problem of seeking to paint a picture of the historical Jesus and finding, in the end, that one has actually painted, in large part, a picture of oneself
-Sanders's Jesus is a failed apocalyptic prophet: his prophecies about the coming the kingdom did not come true, but Jesus also sought to widen the circle of who was a part of the Jewish community to include the sinners; Jesus, convinced that he was God's viceroy (Sanders's term), went to Jerusalem and began to act to try to bring about the coming of the kingdom by his actions at the temple; Jesus thought that even if he died, he would be vindicated, and the kingdom would come; Jesus was wrong, and so Jesus is, ultimately, in my reading of Sanders and in my own personal opinion, a tragic figure
-for Sanders, Jesus was (and this is not surprising to anyone who has read his other works on Jesus and Paul) very much a faithful, observant Jew; I largely agree; the conflicts with the Pharisees seem, when actually read in context, fairly minor in and of themselves, though the gospel writers tend to exaggerate the conflicts (probably due in large part to the fact that, at the time that the gospels were written, there was a substantial rift between rabbinic Judaism, which was the successor of the Pharisees, and Christianity); I think that the consensus of most modern scholars is that Jesus certainly lived and died as a practicing, observant Jew
-like Schweitzer before him, Sanders sees Jesus largely as an apocalyptic prophet; here again, I think Sanders is on the mark; the oldest parts of the New Testament (Paul's letters, Q, and Mark) all give clear indications that Jesus thought that the kingdom was coming soon, and Jesus, according to Sanders (and, I think, a fairly plain reading of the text) saw himself as pivotal to ushering in the kingdom
-Sanders spends much time discussing Jesus's major teaching in Mark: the kingdom of God, but Sanders is hard pressed to say exactly what Jesus meant by this term; he admits that the sayings on this matter are just not clear; his skepticism, I believe, is quite warranted; at times, it appears that the kingdom is a place here and now on earth where humans can live a new life in relationship to God the father; at other times, it seems that the kingdom is something that has not yet come (though it is coming soon) and which will bring about a new rule of the justice of God; many of the kingdom saying are enigmatic or are in parable form and open to a wide variety of translations, so I very much respect Sanders's reticence in this matter
-Sanders never once mentions Q, and I think he gives rather short shrift to the Q material: he does not really analyze any of the ethical teachings from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew)/Plain (Luke) other than a brief discussion about Jesus's prohibition of divorce; similarly, many of the Q parables (and a few of the stand alone Lukan parables) are completely passed over by Sanders; as a result, the ethics of Jesus are not really examined in any great detail; I think that this results in a Jesus who is almost completely an apocalyptic prophet (and I don't disagree that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet) and not much of a teacher of ethics which, if the Q material really does go back to the historical Jesus (and I think most scholars believe that it does, and I am inclined to agree), then ethics were, along with his apocalypticism, a key element of his message
-the preceding thoughts notwithstanding, Sanders does have an excellent discussion of exactly who the "sinners" were that Jesus saw himself as called to preach to: sinners were not people who merely had sinned but not yet offered the proper sacrifices and been cleansed; rather, Sanders argues, sinners were those who lived outside the law: they were the tax collectors and prostitutes and lepers, those with whom most Jews would not associate; Sanders argues that Jesus envisions bringing these people into the kingdom which he proclaims, and what is really radical is that Jesus invites these people in without demanding that they observe any of the cultic rites of purification; instead, according to Sanders, Jesus grants these people admittance to the kingdom solely on the basis of Jesus's own authority; this Sanders sees as unique; this is something that Sanders believes really sets Jesus apart from all the other prophets and reformers of his time; while I am much attracted to this idea of Jesus and while I fully grant that such a view of Jesus is certainly possible, I don't think that the textual evidence is that strong: there are just not enough references to "sinners" as a general category to ascertain just who is and who is not a sinner and exactly what qualifies one as a sinner, but I do agree that Jesus saw a primary part of his mission as bringing sinners into the kingdom
-Sanders assessment of passion week is excellent scholarship; he shows why and how Jesus was executed: Jesus's disruption of the temple was an acted parable, showing that the temple was going to be destroyed; Sanders argues that we can take the text here quite frankly: Jesus was not himself threatening (as some witnesses claimed) to destroy the temple himself, but he did believe that the temple was going to be destroyed by God; nevertheless, Caiaphas, who had as one of his main duties maintaining peace and order in Jerusalem, perceived Jesus as threatening the temple and as someone who could possibly instigate a riot, which could result in negative repercussions from the Romans, so Caiaphas arrested Jesus; because Caiaphas did not have the authority to execute Jesus, he handed him over to Pilate; Sanders argues that Pilate did not hesitate to execute Jesus; the gospels' attempts to exonerate Pilate appear to be attempts to make Christianity more palatable to its Roman rulers, and Pilate, as we know from other sources, was a brutal ruler who executed many Jews with little provocation; here again, I find myself agreeing completely with Sanders; I think that Sanders's portrayal of Jesus's arrest, trial (such it was: it was probably little more than a reading of the charges against Jesus and the passing of his death sentence), and execution is as close to historically accurate as can be
-Sanders has a few comments about the resurrection accounts; he states that the accounts are so confused (Jesus appears to different people in different places and in different time sequences) among the gospels and Paul's account that it is impossible to do draw any substantive conclusions from textual analysis; Sanders also focuses on the fact that all of the appearances seem to indicate clearly that this was not merely a resuscitation of Jesus's body: for example, if Jesus had been simply raised from the dead in his same physical body, why did some of his followers have trouble recognizing him, and why could he appear and disappear and pass through walls, which a physical body could not do, and why does Paul equate his own experience of the resurrection (clearly a visionary experience) as being equal to that of Peter and the other disciples (if Paul's experience was a visionary experience and it was like that of Peter and the other disciples, wouldn't that mean that their experiences were also visionary?)? Sanders, ever the careful historian, refuses to speculate on what the exact nature of the resurrection experiences were, but it is clear that he does not believe that it was simply the physical resuscitation of Jesus’s corpse
-all in all, this is a very careful historical and textual analysis; it lacks the depth of sociological, cultural, and political analysis that one finds in say, JD Crossan, but it is still a rather thorough and, I think, excellent analysis, and Sanders avoids the all too common and all too often referenced (and yet I am referencing it again) problem of seeking to paint a picture of the historical Jesus and finding, in the end, that one has actually painted, in large part, a picture of oneself
-Sanders's Jesus is a failed apocalyptic prophet: his prophecies about the coming the kingdom did not come true, but Jesus also sought to widen the circle of who was a part of the Jewish community to include the sinners; Jesus, convinced that he was God's viceroy (Sanders's term), went to Jerusalem and began to act to try to bring about the coming of the kingdom by his actions at the temple; Jesus thought that even if he died, he would be vindicated, and the kingdom would come; Jesus was wrong, and so Jesus is, ultimately, in my reading of Sanders and in my own personal opinion, a tragic figure
September 20, 2012
This is another book that I put on my must-read list for anyone that wants to understand the history of Christianity better. It is clear, almost always an interesting read, and is surprisingly critical of many of the details of the life of a historical Jesus, if we can assume it is correct that he was a real (and singular) historical figure. Sanders does a great job laying plain the historical, social, and theological agendas of the various gospel writers (the Evangelists), and puts in the proper context the synoptic gospels versus the clearly theological Gospel of John--which he says is likely to contain some accurate details on minutiae but otherwise be quite the embellishment.
Now, even though this book is on my "must-read if you want to understand Christianity, therefore especially if you are a Christian," it only gets four stars from me here because Sanders loses me a bit. That he is a Christian historian is a double-edged sword here. On the one hand, it adds tremendous weight to his highly critical rendering of the details presented in the gospels, often noting that various among those cannot possibly be accurate and must therefore be understood as an embellishment or outright fabrication of its author. He is also stunningly critical of the weight of the gospels as evidence for more than a very bare-bones story about a man that may have lived in the first century--along with great historical context in which to understand his purported actions. On the other hand, when he gets to certain points, notably the resurrection of Christ, he loses me. It feels like his attention to detail and careful treatment get punted right out the window for "yeah, the resurrection.. that happened... not sure how or what happened, but it did...." This kind of wispy wish-thinking on the hardest-to-swallow point of the religious construction goes at least a little way to undermining his credibility on the matter. That the entire resurrection myth is most likely to be an imported literary embellishment, a point not missed by non-Christian writers like John W. Loftus, seems lost on Sanders, which is a pity given how careful he appears everywhere else in the text.
Now, even though this book is on my "must-read if you want to understand Christianity, therefore especially if you are a Christian," it only gets four stars from me here because Sanders loses me a bit. That he is a Christian historian is a double-edged sword here. On the one hand, it adds tremendous weight to his highly critical rendering of the details presented in the gospels, often noting that various among those cannot possibly be accurate and must therefore be understood as an embellishment or outright fabrication of its author. He is also stunningly critical of the weight of the gospels as evidence for more than a very bare-bones story about a man that may have lived in the first century--along with great historical context in which to understand his purported actions. On the other hand, when he gets to certain points, notably the resurrection of Christ, he loses me. It feels like his attention to detail and careful treatment get punted right out the window for "yeah, the resurrection.. that happened... not sure how or what happened, but it did...." This kind of wispy wish-thinking on the hardest-to-swallow point of the religious construction goes at least a little way to undermining his credibility on the matter. That the entire resurrection myth is most likely to be an imported literary embellishment, a point not missed by non-Christian writers like John W. Loftus, seems lost on Sanders, which is a pity given how careful he appears everywhere else in the text.
December 31, 2017
A quite noble and enlightening attempt at historical analysis of Jesus life. Attempting to draw out the pericopes (assumed short texts of stories, teachings, and sayings of Jesus) which the Gospel writers drew on in writing their accounts, as well as Pauline epistles, Josephus, and more general Roman history, E.P. Sanders attempts to assemble a picture of what Roman controlled Judea (as well as not Roman controlled, but protected Galilee), and how Jesus life and teachings fit into it. Even Sanders admits that a lot of this is conjecture, but I believe he uses the textual evidence in such a way that his arguments are often quite convincing. A few quite enlightening points include: Jesus was not a social radical or reformer, instead simply being a "spiritual radical" emphasizing God's love for even the lowliest sinner; Rome had a very small military/governing apparatus in Judea at the time and did not rule like a oppressive dystopian police state; ancient Jewish authorities, like the Sadducees and Pharisees, were not religious extremists who persecuted all dissent, and were instead quite lenient as long as you followed the commandments; much of the Christmas story probably never happened, and quite a few of Jesus' specific life events were written by later authors with seeming Old Testament Messianic prophesies in mind; and Jesus was probably executed by a corrupt and negligent Roman governor (Pilate) under recommendation of the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas, who quite realistically feared potential mob violence and Roman retribution after Jesus' destruction of property in the Temple and prophesy of its impending destruction, which was taken as a threat. Besides offering a summary of what things we can be pretty sure about in Jesus' life (his status as an exorcist, his association with sinners, the Last Supper and the Lord's Prayer, his execution, etc.) it also gives a good summary of common Jewish ritual and religious life of the time, and how the religious authorities cooperated with Rome's governance and oversight. Overall, a very solid look at the historical Jesus and his time, and I think it would be hard to do much better considering the lack of primary material on his life.
March 29, 2019
NPJ! New Perspective on Jesus?!? Ha, no need to be alarmed, just kidding. E.P. Sanders is principally known for being the first proponent of the NPP where it was developed in his book "Paul and Palestinian Judaism," I did, however, find this book on Jesus to be enriching. Relying primarily on what can be known of first-century Palestine and Jewish practices, Sanders attempts to reconstruct the person of Jesus and asks the difficult questions like: how can we know that Jesus said this based on these seemingly irreconcilable variances? I strongly disagree with most of his conclusions, but I did find this book refreshing in a strange way. My fascination and love for the person of Jesus has certainly increased, even though I don't like his conclusions and I think it is because I feel more aware of the different/difficult issues of those who disagree with me. Great read.
April 18, 2020
A very informative book, written by a scholar with deep knowledge of the subject, in a clear and easy to be understood style.
The information about Jesus’ life is limited and distorted by the re-writing of the original texts and the myriad of interpretations and the author recognises that “the results are partial at best. A true title of this project would be ‘basic information about Jesus: important aspects of what he did, what he thought, and what others thought of him”.
Nevertheless, his analysis is not only very well documented and informative, but captivating and easy to follow.
Some notes I took to remember this gem, and to check if, hopefully, I will read more about this subject:
pg 11 That Jesus was born a few years before the beginning of the era that stars with his birth is one of the minor curiosities of history.
Dionysius Exiguus, the inventor of the Anno Domini (AD) had limited information and his estimation was wrong.
Pg 12 Jesus lived with his parents in Nazareth. It is a strong possibility that virtually all Jesus’ active ministry, except for the last two or three weeks was carried out in Galilee.
Pg 44 The Pharisees, like most of first-century Jews, believed in some form of existence after death, an idea that is hard to find in the Hebrew Bible (the only clear reference is Daniel 12.2).
Pg 47 During Jesus’ lifetime, the Pharisees must be regarded as principal religious teachers and experts, deservedly popular and respected.
Pg 49 It is hard to believe how unimportant Jesus was during his lifetime, especially outside Palestine.
Jesus’ trial did not make headlines in Rome, the archives there had no record of it.
Pg 54 Jesus died between 26 and 36 CE.
Pg 63 We do not know who wrote the gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century.
Pg 68 With regard to the duration of Jesus’ ministry, it is hard to choose between John’s three Passovers and the synoptics’ one Passover. Possibly they had scattered bits of information, from which they constructed believable narratives that contain a fair amount of guesswork.
Pg 81 The early Christians saw Jesus as having the ultimate place in the context of Jewish salvation history.
Pg 113 Jesus did not fast, a fact that brought some criticism (Mark 2.18-22 Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, ‘Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?’ Jesus said to them, ‘The wedding-guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day).
Pg 133 The few references to a coming Messiah in Jewish literature do not depict him as a miracle-worker. There was no expectation of a coming Son of God at all. Jews believed in miracles but did not think that the ability to perform them proved exalted status. The combination of the titles ‘Messiah’ and ‘Son of God’ with the ability to perform miracles is a Christian one.
Pg 161 In a Jewish context, ‘Son of God’ does not mean more than human. All Jews were ‘Sons of God’.
Pg 164 Mark especially depicts the disciples as having less confidence in Jesus than did some strangers, and being unimpressed with miracles. The disciples fled when he was arrested. Later, some of the disciples would be willing to die because of their devotion to Jesus and his message. The explanation of the change is that they saw the resurrected Lord, and these experiences gave them the absolute confidence. Jesus’ miracles did not do so.
Pg 169 Mark 1.15 summarises Jesus’ message thus: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the gospel’.
It is hard to say positively what Jesus meant by ‘The kingdom of God’. There are two meanings - one is that God reigns in heaven, he occasionally acts in history, but he completely and consistently governs only heaven. The second is that in the future God will rule the earth. It would be perfectly reasonable to guess he would have chosen both options.
Pg 178 The only thing that Jesus ever asked people to do is live right. In none of the materials does he urge them to build an alternative society that will be the kingdom of God.
Pg 179 A saying in the synoptics promises that ‘some standing here’ will still be alive when the Son of Man comes’.
Paul’s converts were shaken by the fact that some members of the congregation had died; they expected the Lord to return while they were still alive. Paul assured them that the (few) dead Christians would be raised so that they could participate in the coming kingdom along with those who were still alive when Lord returned.
In the decades after Jesus’ death the Christians had to revise their first expectation again and again. This makes it very probable that the expectation originated with Jesus.
Pg 192 All the authors of the gospels favoured the mission to Gentiles. This reflects the outcome: Jews had for the most part decided not to accept Jesus, while the mission to the Gentiles was fairly successful.
Jesus’ own mission was to Israel, especially to the ‘lost sheep’ of Israel. He made no effort to seek and win Gentiles.
Pg 203 The tone of Jesus’ ministry was compassionate and not judgemental. People should be perfect, but God was lenient – and so was Jesus, acting on his behalf.
Pg 203 Jesus questioned about fasting Mark 2:18-22 ‘John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?” Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them.
Jesus was no Puritan.
Pg 210 Jesus did not oppose the law: rather, he required a stricter code of practice.
Pg 218 The reader of Mark is invited to believe that a series of good deeds by Jesus led the Pharisees to wanting to kill him. This is intrinsically improbable, and it is disproved by the subsequent history: when the crunch actually came, the Pharisees had nothing what so ever to do with his death.
Pg 234 Jesus thought God was about to change the circumstances of the world. He did not have to deal with such problems. He required a few people, those who actually followed him, to give up everything. To others, he promised the kingdom without setting down a lot of stipulations and conditions.
Pg 271 Jesus threatened the Temple and gave himself airs. Because of his principal political and moral responsibilities, to preserve peace and to prevent riots and bloodshed, the high priest decided Jesus had to die because of the temple, not on the basis of claiming titles.
Pg 280 Much about historical Jesus will remain a mystery. Nothing is more mysterious than the stories of his resurrection.
The followers believed this, they lived it, and they died for it. In the process they created a movement that in many ways went far beyond Jesus’ message.
Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and message. We know who he was, what he did, what he thought, and why he died. Perhaps most important, we know how much he inspired his followers, who sometimes did not understand him, but were so loyal to him that they changed history.
The information about Jesus’ life is limited and distorted by the re-writing of the original texts and the myriad of interpretations and the author recognises that “the results are partial at best. A true title of this project would be ‘basic information about Jesus: important aspects of what he did, what he thought, and what others thought of him”.
Nevertheless, his analysis is not only very well documented and informative, but captivating and easy to follow.
Some notes I took to remember this gem, and to check if, hopefully, I will read more about this subject:
pg 11 That Jesus was born a few years before the beginning of the era that stars with his birth is one of the minor curiosities of history.
Dionysius Exiguus, the inventor of the Anno Domini (AD) had limited information and his estimation was wrong.
Pg 12 Jesus lived with his parents in Nazareth. It is a strong possibility that virtually all Jesus’ active ministry, except for the last two or three weeks was carried out in Galilee.
Pg 44 The Pharisees, like most of first-century Jews, believed in some form of existence after death, an idea that is hard to find in the Hebrew Bible (the only clear reference is Daniel 12.2).
Pg 47 During Jesus’ lifetime, the Pharisees must be regarded as principal religious teachers and experts, deservedly popular and respected.
Pg 49 It is hard to believe how unimportant Jesus was during his lifetime, especially outside Palestine.
Jesus’ trial did not make headlines in Rome, the archives there had no record of it.
Pg 54 Jesus died between 26 and 36 CE.
Pg 63 We do not know who wrote the gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century.
Pg 68 With regard to the duration of Jesus’ ministry, it is hard to choose between John’s three Passovers and the synoptics’ one Passover. Possibly they had scattered bits of information, from which they constructed believable narratives that contain a fair amount of guesswork.
Pg 81 The early Christians saw Jesus as having the ultimate place in the context of Jewish salvation history.
Pg 113 Jesus did not fast, a fact that brought some criticism (Mark 2.18-22 Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, ‘Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?’ Jesus said to them, ‘The wedding-guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day).
Pg 133 The few references to a coming Messiah in Jewish literature do not depict him as a miracle-worker. There was no expectation of a coming Son of God at all. Jews believed in miracles but did not think that the ability to perform them proved exalted status. The combination of the titles ‘Messiah’ and ‘Son of God’ with the ability to perform miracles is a Christian one.
Pg 161 In a Jewish context, ‘Son of God’ does not mean more than human. All Jews were ‘Sons of God’.
Pg 164 Mark especially depicts the disciples as having less confidence in Jesus than did some strangers, and being unimpressed with miracles. The disciples fled when he was arrested. Later, some of the disciples would be willing to die because of their devotion to Jesus and his message. The explanation of the change is that they saw the resurrected Lord, and these experiences gave them the absolute confidence. Jesus’ miracles did not do so.
Pg 169 Mark 1.15 summarises Jesus’ message thus: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the gospel’.
It is hard to say positively what Jesus meant by ‘The kingdom of God’. There are two meanings - one is that God reigns in heaven, he occasionally acts in history, but he completely and consistently governs only heaven. The second is that in the future God will rule the earth. It would be perfectly reasonable to guess he would have chosen both options.
Pg 178 The only thing that Jesus ever asked people to do is live right. In none of the materials does he urge them to build an alternative society that will be the kingdom of God.
Pg 179 A saying in the synoptics promises that ‘some standing here’ will still be alive when the Son of Man comes’.
Paul’s converts were shaken by the fact that some members of the congregation had died; they expected the Lord to return while they were still alive. Paul assured them that the (few) dead Christians would be raised so that they could participate in the coming kingdom along with those who were still alive when Lord returned.
In the decades after Jesus’ death the Christians had to revise their first expectation again and again. This makes it very probable that the expectation originated with Jesus.
Pg 192 All the authors of the gospels favoured the mission to Gentiles. This reflects the outcome: Jews had for the most part decided not to accept Jesus, while the mission to the Gentiles was fairly successful.
Jesus’ own mission was to Israel, especially to the ‘lost sheep’ of Israel. He made no effort to seek and win Gentiles.
Pg 203 The tone of Jesus’ ministry was compassionate and not judgemental. People should be perfect, but God was lenient – and so was Jesus, acting on his behalf.
Pg 203 Jesus questioned about fasting Mark 2:18-22 ‘John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?” Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them.
Jesus was no Puritan.
Pg 210 Jesus did not oppose the law: rather, he required a stricter code of practice.
Pg 218 The reader of Mark is invited to believe that a series of good deeds by Jesus led the Pharisees to wanting to kill him. This is intrinsically improbable, and it is disproved by the subsequent history: when the crunch actually came, the Pharisees had nothing what so ever to do with his death.
Pg 234 Jesus thought God was about to change the circumstances of the world. He did not have to deal with such problems. He required a few people, those who actually followed him, to give up everything. To others, he promised the kingdom without setting down a lot of stipulations and conditions.
Pg 271 Jesus threatened the Temple and gave himself airs. Because of his principal political and moral responsibilities, to preserve peace and to prevent riots and bloodshed, the high priest decided Jesus had to die because of the temple, not on the basis of claiming titles.
Pg 280 Much about historical Jesus will remain a mystery. Nothing is more mysterious than the stories of his resurrection.
The followers believed this, they lived it, and they died for it. In the process they created a movement that in many ways went far beyond Jesus’ message.
Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and message. We know who he was, what he did, what he thought, and why he died. Perhaps most important, we know how much he inspired his followers, who sometimes did not understand him, but were so loyal to him that they changed history.
May 3, 2011
As a Jesus agnostic eager to see what I could learn about the historicity question I decided to read a few books from varying viewpoints. After having read this title by Sanders I turned to 'The Historical Evidence for Jesus' by G.A. Wells which takes a more pessimistic perspective. Overall I found Sanders’ work to be an eloquent and enlightening if not a flawed account.
From the outset it might be helpful to add that unlike myself, Sanders assumes an historical Jesus and his work is neither an attempt to prove his historicity nor a discussion on the nature of historical evidence (which apparently he discusses in an earlier work) but, rather, an attempt to paint an historical Jesus based on the assumption that, firstly, he existed and, secondly, that the gospels can tell us something about him. Rightly or wrongly, however, I do not share these same two assumptions and my review will be coloured by this fact. I am, however, aware that the consensus opinion amongst scholars (not that this is of itself proof) is strongly to the contrary and that works focusing on his life and teachings generally presuppose these assumptions and focus on whom Jesus was and not if he was.
The first few chapters on the historical and theological context of Jesus and Judaism are very well written and enlightening. On the external evidence for Jesus Sanders admits that the pagan and Jewish sources do not so much mention Jesus himself rather than Christianity and that the Testimonium Flavianum is problematic. Disappointingly, however, Sanders only devotes some 7 and a half pages to his chapter on the external evidence. One might say that Sanders can hardly be blamed for the (limited) nature of this external evidence but Sanders does not mention Pliny the Younger, the lesser of Josephus’ comments or the Rabbinic literature which may contain references to a Jesus. Put simply, you can get more in depth analysis on the external sources for Jesus from Wikipedia than you can here!
Sanders, not being a conservative evangelical, admits that there are problems with the gospel accounts:
1. Jesus’ first followers did not write a narrative but only preserved short passages of his words and deeds – later arranged by the Evangelists.
2. Some material was revised or even created by the early Christians.
3. The Gospels were originally anonymous.
4. The Gospel of John is significantly different from the Synoptics.
5. The Gospels are not modern biographies
Sanders lays out the process by which he believes the gospels came to be written - through a succession of steps beginning with the teachings of Jesus himself followed by an oral tradition, followed by pericopes (short collections of sayings), followed by a collection of pericopes leading then to the Gospel of Mark and the later gospels. Sanders acknowledges however: “I wish to emphasise that we do not know that this is precisely how the gospels originated. We infer the process from the finished product.” p.60
It seems to me, however, that, given the paramount importance of the gospels when reconstructing the historical Jesus, the process by which these gospels came into being is perhaps the single most important question one can ask and I would like to have seen a more convincing explanation as to why the process Sanders infers should be accepted.
As I later learned from reading Wells, given that the historical Jesus barely appears (if at all) in the Pauline corpus it is all the more important that the gospels be put on much firmer ground. Given that the gospel accounts contain legendary aspects (the annunciation, the virgin birth...); are non-contemporaneous to events they purport to describe (with most scholars including Sanders dating them to after AD 70); are internally contradictory (the nativities of Luke vs. Matthew) and externally inconsistent with known history (the dating of Quirinius); are not entirely independent of one another (Matthew and Luke both apparently having used Mark as a source) and are highly biased in their theological agendas and that we cannot be certain of the process by which they came into being (with Ehrman in particular emphasising the importance of the oral tradition as a truth-bending recruitment tool) it would seem that the gospels are not in fact the most reliable of historical sources. After having established the problems with the texts we are, however, told: “Nevertheless, it is the four canonical gospels that we must search for traces of the historical Jesus.” p.65
It would seem that it is indeed true that we must search the gospels for traces of the historical Jesus but not, however, because they are reliable (it is clear that they are not) but because in the desperate search for Jesus they are all we have.
Sanders describes a close interplay of themes in the gospels which reveals literary art, that they are very episodic in nature and that Matthew and Luke are mythological elaborations based on fact. Sanders seems committed to the assumption that, whilst allegorical and symbolic (with the 12 disciples representing the 12 tribes of Israel and the 40 days in the desert representing the 40 years of Exodus in the Sinai) these stories must be based on a kernel of truth because it seems probable that an itinerant preacher could have been living in the first half of the 1st century. Whilst I would agree that this is eminently plausible it does not prove that the Jesus described in the gospels is the Jesus of history.
Sanders seems fine with exposing the problematic nature of the gospels with all their inherent contradictions, embellishments, and insertions that are tantamount to pious fraud but struggles desperately to argue that the gospels do preserve some kernels of truth from an earlier written and oral tradition ultimately going to back to Jesus’ words and deeds. But is it not unreasonable to assume that, since the gospel writers were themselves writing theological propaganda that the sources they drew upon were similarly compromised?
March 13, 2025
Very interesting book which provided great context to the Bible helped explain Jesus in a more historical perspective. Towards the end the book got extremely dry and pretty speculative, kind of a snoozefest. But the first 150 pages or so did a fantastic job explaining the politics and social conditions that most likely shaped Jesus's actions and beliefs. In a nutshell Sanders was trying to argue that Jesus was a product of the Jewish society that he was raised in; he was an observant Jew, most likely viewed that the end times were near and that divine intervention from God was imminent. Sanders throuroughly explains the historicity of various biblical sources and then analyzes certain passages to try to deconstruct what's fake, real and make logical inferences.
I know a book is good when I want to do more reading on a subject, and this book definitely leaves me with more questions on the development of early Christianity. So although dry and plodding at points, it was such an informative read that helps frame Christianity in an entirely new light.
I know a book is good when I want to do more reading on a subject, and this book definitely leaves me with more questions on the development of early Christianity. So although dry and plodding at points, it was such an informative read that helps frame Christianity in an entirely new light.
March 15, 2025
This was such a fun read. Accessible while also being dense. This was packed full of information that enriches the world of the 1st century and the gospels. He takes a critical look and asks good questions of the gospels and the words of Jesus I really respect and appreciate, which would be good for any Christian to at least dip their toe into. Even if I didn’t agree with every conclusion, was well worth the read.
June 26, 2020
Interesting perspective from both spiritual and historic viewpoints. Enjoyed the clear analysis of the evidence and learnt a lot from that methodology even if not agreeing with all . You can read and enjoy it if you have faith or you have disbelief. Might well read it again .
September 12, 2025
Interesting topic, but falls short on history. Pretty much bible mixed with academics and as a result pretty boring.
October 19, 2019
The author is investigating about historical Jesus from the beginning of his life till his death by using historic resources and analyzing the Gospels (luke... Mathew...mark. John)..
After arguing about when Jesus was born accurately ...he began to talk about the environment of Palestine in that time and how the Roman empire intervened in the ruling system of Palestine while mentaining the Jewish law ruling for Jewish people...
Then he talked about Judaism and it's influence on Jews and their Covenant with God.
After that he talked about Jesus according to the gospels and compare between them to reach rational results
After arguing about when Jesus was born accurately ...he began to talk about the environment of Palestine in that time and how the Roman empire intervened in the ruling system of Palestine while mentaining the Jewish law ruling for Jewish people...
Then he talked about Judaism and it's influence on Jews and their Covenant with God.
After that he talked about Jesus according to the gospels and compare between them to reach rational results
December 6, 2024
Simply the best biography of Jesus for the lay reader out there. Period.
April 16, 2016
E.P. Sanders seems to lie somewhere on the historical/critical spectrum between the "Jesus Seminar" and N.T. Wright. He is notably critical of the gospel accounts, particularly as they move into miraculous events, but he also maintains an open mind regarding the explanations that could be offered. His scholarship is rigorous, and for those who are interested in the setting into which Jesus worked, there is much to be gained from this volume.
Sanders is at his best when he is explaining the world of Judaism in the 1st century. He passionately debunks many popular myths that modern evangelicals hold, and I personally learned a lot about how different Jewish sects understood their practice, how Rome's governance worked, and how some of Jesus' actions would have been realistically received by the populace. It's also worth noting that his scholarship is accessible, and 'lay people' will find this book quite easy to read.
Overall, if the "historical Jesus" is of interest to you, but you find the Jesus Seminar scholars too captive to Enlightenment-era reason/skepticism, then you will enjoy Sanders' work here.
Sanders is at his best when he is explaining the world of Judaism in the 1st century. He passionately debunks many popular myths that modern evangelicals hold, and I personally learned a lot about how different Jewish sects understood their practice, how Rome's governance worked, and how some of Jesus' actions would have been realistically received by the populace. It's also worth noting that his scholarship is accessible, and 'lay people' will find this book quite easy to read.
Overall, if the "historical Jesus" is of interest to you, but you find the Jesus Seminar scholars too captive to Enlightenment-era reason/skepticism, then you will enjoy Sanders' work here.
September 10, 2019
The first 6-7 chapters present an excellent explanation of the process an historian uses when trying to coax out what “really happened” in the bible stories. That alone is very valuable. However, the book was written in 1993 and a lot has changed since then. New discoveries - textual and archeological; a number of scholarly perspectives have clarified and or shifted.
The rest of the book is a painstakingly slow examination of everything written about Jesus applying the historical process that has been outlined to determine what is real and what is fiction, speculation, propaganda, or something else. His work is detailed and often repetitive. The chapters do not build on each other. They stand alone and I think you could pick up the book and read any one of the last ten chapters and it would make complete sense.
The rest of the book is a painstakingly slow examination of everything written about Jesus applying the historical process that has been outlined to determine what is real and what is fiction, speculation, propaganda, or something else. His work is detailed and often repetitive. The chapters do not build on each other. They stand alone and I think you could pick up the book and read any one of the last ten chapters and it would make complete sense.
June 8, 2016
i mostly bought this because i wanted to buy something at verbatim books in san diego (definitely worth a browse if you are in SD) and i thought this might be useful for this thing i have been trying to write. i was hoping for more like, social historical context of mr. christ, but this was kind of cool despite a lot of necessary disclaimers that there really isn't too much concrete to know about jesus the guy (even though i want him to say like, jesus was short and bald and smelled like freshly baked bread or something to that effect). anyway: this is good history, humanely written, especially good in puzzling out what stuff in the gospels is especially forced (the moses echos, etc). but not sure it's necessary unless you are a christology superfan.
May 18, 2009
Here is another very valuable book on the historical Jesus. E.P. Sanders's book was published in 1993, and his work is on a par with the likes of Geza Vermes. I had been looking for E.P.S. in my local library, with no luck, so I bought this copy from Amazon and I'm glad I did.
It's in the treatment of New Testament Gospels where the author shines. He clearly explains the chronology of M.L.M.& J. + Paul & Acts etc., while fishing out redaction and early Christian agenda. His knowledge of first century Judaism helps greatly to light up many frustratingly vague N.T. passages, while leaving alone the speculative theorizing.
It's in the treatment of New Testament Gospels where the author shines. He clearly explains the chronology of M.L.M.& J. + Paul & Acts etc., while fishing out redaction and early Christian agenda. His knowledge of first century Judaism helps greatly to light up many frustratingly vague N.T. passages, while leaving alone the speculative theorizing.
January 17, 2016
Avevo un conto in sospeso con questo libro: ne avevo letto un centinaio di pagine all'incirca venti anni fa, poi mi ero arenato e lo avevo abbandonato. Devo dire che ritengo tutt'ora le prime cento pagine, quelle che tracciano i principali contorni politici e culturali di Giudea e Galilea e ci istruiscono su alcuni punti fermi sui quali c'è largo consenso tra gli storici, largamente più interessanti delle duecento successive dove ci addentriamo in ipotesi di dettaglio circa a come i Vangeli ad esempio ci suggeriscono che Gesù vedesse il futuro avvento nel Regno di Dio. Una bella lettura in ogni caso... se si riesce a tenere botta fino in fondo.
September 17, 2016
a reaction, more than a review, here; my reaction is like the other reader who asks what about Jesus' sanctity in the context of history. Sanders' book is so evocative, so true an exploration, that you do have to confront: what do I really know about Jesus? What is mere belief? Who do I really say he was?
October 18, 2024
Had to read for class. I did not agree with most of points in the book and got sidetracked and bored a lot during it by the scholarly words. It was still very interesting to see historical facts and traditions compared vs The Bible and to see possible reasons for differences
March 3, 2018
Critical look at the historical Jesus. Great foundation for those unfamiliar with the field.
In attempting to sketch a critical and historic picture of what we can know about the historical Jesus, Sander does a wonderful job as scholar and guide. Sanders begins The Historical Figure of Jesus by correcting popular misconceptions about the religious, political, and geographical settings of the life of Jesus. He employees “rigorous cross-examination” as a historian while he attempts to get back to what we can know about Jesus with some level of confidence (8). What is most notable about the opening chapters is how persuasively he demonstrates the wrong assumptions many readers have had through the centuries. I am particularly pleased to see Sanders set Jesus in his Galilean and Jewish context. He makes the world of Jesus’ ministry small and insignificant until the final weeks of Jesus’ life. This comes over and against a current theological fad that sees Jesus directly and intentionally against Rome and “empire.” Sanders correctly shows that Jesus had little interaction with Rome in his ministry (15) because Galilee had no Roman presence during his lifetime (27).
Sanders is superb when dealing with Judaism and Jesus. He makes some debatable claims about sources and authenticity throughout the book, but he always acknowledges when he is making an educated guess and when he is standing on solid historical ground. The middle sections of the book deals with sources, redactions, and narrative creations in the Gospels. Sanders doesn’t take any unexpected positions here, but his numerous examples evaluating the text are helpful to develop an understanding of redaction criticism.
In the chapter on miracles, he argues that Jesus rose to fame because of his numerous healings (154). Sanders compares Jesus with Honi the circle-drawer and shows how the healings and miracles of Jesus were not the impetus for people seeing him as the Messiah (132) and certainly not for viewing him as God (163). Sanders is critical of miracles and says he himself doesn’t believe in them (141), but his arguments about the role of miracles in Jesus’ ministry are largely in agreement with what Matthew and Mark tell us. Most readers will agree with the general points Sanders makes about miracles. It is his point about the message of Jesus will cause contention. Essentially, Sanders argues that Jesus was a good Jew who agreed with the law and simply expanded its reach (e.g. The Beatitudes). It was Jesus’ lack of repentance preach that began his trouble with the religious leaders (230-232). Since Luke is where we get the majority of Jesus’ teaching on repentance, it is likely that Luke adds or emphasizes them to be more than what they ever were (232-233). For such a radical claim, Sanders offers insubstantial evidence in the few pages it occupies. The claim that Jesus did not teach repentance leads into what Sanders believes Jesus thought of his followers; mainly, that they could make it into the kingdom of God without having to repent in the way Jewish law required (235). Sander’s writes, “Did [Jesus] hope that they would change their ways? Probably he did. But ‘change now or be destroyed’ was not his message, it was John’s. Jesus’ was, ‘God loves you (233).’” This would have been incredibly offensive to most Jews and it is likely that this message of Jesus began the serious tension with religious leaders. Sanders conclusions about the execution of Jesus are standard for critical historical analysis. He sees Jesus’ threat of the temple and the perceived potential for his teaching to start a riot at Passover as the catalyst that led Caiaphas to recommend execution to Pilate (269,273). The resurrection experiences of the disciples and others were according to Sanders, “a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know(280).” Sanders calls the resurrection experiences the most mysterious aspect of studying the historical Jesus and offers little in way of judgment (280).
Sander's consistently rigid historical approach guides his sketch of Jesus from beginning to end. On a few occasions this leads him to unpopular conclusions, but the whole, Sanders does an honorable job as a historian guiding the reader through the biases of writers, preachers, and scholars to arrive at a surprising wealth of information we can know with assurance about the historical Jesus.
In attempting to sketch a critical and historic picture of what we can know about the historical Jesus, Sander does a wonderful job as scholar and guide. Sanders begins The Historical Figure of Jesus by correcting popular misconceptions about the religious, political, and geographical settings of the life of Jesus. He employees “rigorous cross-examination” as a historian while he attempts to get back to what we can know about Jesus with some level of confidence (8). What is most notable about the opening chapters is how persuasively he demonstrates the wrong assumptions many readers have had through the centuries. I am particularly pleased to see Sanders set Jesus in his Galilean and Jewish context. He makes the world of Jesus’ ministry small and insignificant until the final weeks of Jesus’ life. This comes over and against a current theological fad that sees Jesus directly and intentionally against Rome and “empire.” Sanders correctly shows that Jesus had little interaction with Rome in his ministry (15) because Galilee had no Roman presence during his lifetime (27).
Sanders is superb when dealing with Judaism and Jesus. He makes some debatable claims about sources and authenticity throughout the book, but he always acknowledges when he is making an educated guess and when he is standing on solid historical ground. The middle sections of the book deals with sources, redactions, and narrative creations in the Gospels. Sanders doesn’t take any unexpected positions here, but his numerous examples evaluating the text are helpful to develop an understanding of redaction criticism.
In the chapter on miracles, he argues that Jesus rose to fame because of his numerous healings (154). Sanders compares Jesus with Honi the circle-drawer and shows how the healings and miracles of Jesus were not the impetus for people seeing him as the Messiah (132) and certainly not for viewing him as God (163). Sanders is critical of miracles and says he himself doesn’t believe in them (141), but his arguments about the role of miracles in Jesus’ ministry are largely in agreement with what Matthew and Mark tell us. Most readers will agree with the general points Sanders makes about miracles. It is his point about the message of Jesus will cause contention. Essentially, Sanders argues that Jesus was a good Jew who agreed with the law and simply expanded its reach (e.g. The Beatitudes). It was Jesus’ lack of repentance preach that began his trouble with the religious leaders (230-232). Since Luke is where we get the majority of Jesus’ teaching on repentance, it is likely that Luke adds or emphasizes them to be more than what they ever were (232-233). For such a radical claim, Sanders offers insubstantial evidence in the few pages it occupies. The claim that Jesus did not teach repentance leads into what Sanders believes Jesus thought of his followers; mainly, that they could make it into the kingdom of God without having to repent in the way Jewish law required (235). Sander’s writes, “Did [Jesus] hope that they would change their ways? Probably he did. But ‘change now or be destroyed’ was not his message, it was John’s. Jesus’ was, ‘God loves you (233).’” This would have been incredibly offensive to most Jews and it is likely that this message of Jesus began the serious tension with religious leaders. Sanders conclusions about the execution of Jesus are standard for critical historical analysis. He sees Jesus’ threat of the temple and the perceived potential for his teaching to start a riot at Passover as the catalyst that led Caiaphas to recommend execution to Pilate (269,273). The resurrection experiences of the disciples and others were according to Sanders, “a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know(280).” Sanders calls the resurrection experiences the most mysterious aspect of studying the historical Jesus and offers little in way of judgment (280).
Sander's consistently rigid historical approach guides his sketch of Jesus from beginning to end. On a few occasions this leads him to unpopular conclusions, but the whole, Sanders does an honorable job as a historian guiding the reader through the biases of writers, preachers, and scholars to arrive at a surprising wealth of information we can know with assurance about the historical Jesus.
February 8, 2018
This book is an important one for historical Jesus research, partially because it's a coherent review of the major issues related to studying Jesus from a historical perspective, and party because it's a summary that is based on the judgments of an important Jesus scholar in E.P. Sanders. This book does feature some novel suggestions, as well as unique arguments in relation to Sanders' own views, but it is also intended as an introduction to the major issues of historical Jesus research rather than an academic inquiry into new terrain. The book is both learned and popular, and does not get bogged down with technical language and interaction with other scholars.
The book is good because Sanders is a thoughtful scholar, and because he writes with cogency and a helpful structure. All of the major issues are addressed, and again, anything where one can derive Sanders' views has reading value. He's has spent a career thinking well on these issues. One aspect to praise in particular is Sanders' insistence that Jesus was far more consistent with his Jewish roots than most modern Christians would realize (or be comfortable with), and Sanders does a brilliant job of grounding Jesus in his Jewish life.
The book is not without some serious difficulties. As introductions go, I see them best serving their readers when they describe issues without too much direct judgment. They present the relevant information and allow the readers to explore more on their own and make judgments for themselves. This is where some restraint, and more engagement with other scholars, would have helped. Sanders does not take this approach, instead casting his own judgments on the issues, many without adequate reflection on evidence that would cast his arguments in a doubtful light. This leads to an even more concerning criticism, that rather than rooting his arguments in data, at times, Sanders simply relies on his faith in his own faculties of judgment, and he too often speaks to what is likely, or probable, based on little more than his own fancy. This tendency leaves too many of his judgments with an arbitrariness that fails to convince. Sanders is a good and careful historian, but this book leaves the impression that he had become too aware of that fact, and no longer felt the need to justify his understandings of what could, or did, happen in the life of Jesus.
Overall, I disagreed with many of Sanders' conclusions. On the whole, I tend to be much more trustworthy of the texts, unless evidence points me otherwise. I'm uncomfortable with Sanders' insistence on relying upon judgments based on "It seems to me" sort of reasoning. Having said that, this book is a classic of the field, as introductions go, and anyone interested in historical Jesus studies would benefit greatly from reading and taking in Sanders' undeniable insight and learning on this issue, as well as his remarkable ability to evaluate data from a historical perspective.
The book is good because Sanders is a thoughtful scholar, and because he writes with cogency and a helpful structure. All of the major issues are addressed, and again, anything where one can derive Sanders' views has reading value. He's has spent a career thinking well on these issues. One aspect to praise in particular is Sanders' insistence that Jesus was far more consistent with his Jewish roots than most modern Christians would realize (or be comfortable with), and Sanders does a brilliant job of grounding Jesus in his Jewish life.
The book is not without some serious difficulties. As introductions go, I see them best serving their readers when they describe issues without too much direct judgment. They present the relevant information and allow the readers to explore more on their own and make judgments for themselves. This is where some restraint, and more engagement with other scholars, would have helped. Sanders does not take this approach, instead casting his own judgments on the issues, many without adequate reflection on evidence that would cast his arguments in a doubtful light. This leads to an even more concerning criticism, that rather than rooting his arguments in data, at times, Sanders simply relies on his faith in his own faculties of judgment, and he too often speaks to what is likely, or probable, based on little more than his own fancy. This tendency leaves too many of his judgments with an arbitrariness that fails to convince. Sanders is a good and careful historian, but this book leaves the impression that he had become too aware of that fact, and no longer felt the need to justify his understandings of what could, or did, happen in the life of Jesus.
Overall, I disagreed with many of Sanders' conclusions. On the whole, I tend to be much more trustworthy of the texts, unless evidence points me otherwise. I'm uncomfortable with Sanders' insistence on relying upon judgments based on "It seems to me" sort of reasoning. Having said that, this book is a classic of the field, as introductions go, and anyone interested in historical Jesus studies would benefit greatly from reading and taking in Sanders' undeniable insight and learning on this issue, as well as his remarkable ability to evaluate data from a historical perspective.
November 24, 2020
I recently read Crossan's book on more or less the same subject and it was useful to compare. The vast difference in point of view between these two authors shows what an impossible task they were setting themselves.
Of the two versions I have to say that I appreciated Crossan's book very much more despite it's length and sometimes tedious repetitions. He pares the texts ruthlessly down to practically nothing but maintains a vision of a Jesus who was both revolutionary, determined and profoundly charismatic.
Not only was Sanders far less rigorous with his texts but he seemed so often to entirely miss the point by treating his texts in an utterly literal way. All along he seems to assume that the disciples, following Jesus' death, must be overestimating the charism and depth of Jesus' personality and understanding. We are then left with a Jesus who is really just an ordinary Jewish bloke with some extra skills in healing and magic and a more or less inexplicable idea of a kingdom of Heaven. He ignores crucial passages in the gospels regarding Jesus' prophecies of his own destiny - perhaps assuming, without stating the fact, that this was hindsight on the part of the authors but seems to suggest that the last supper, the agony in the garden and Jesus' burial - all discounted as historical fact by Crossan - actually took place.
Interestingly he mentions the fact that Jesus' prophecy about the fate of the temple did not come about because of the continued existence of the wailing wall. This sounds out-of-date now.
I kept on wondering why he had attempted the book in the first place: the Jesus he portrays is not really worthy of all the effort.
The crunch came for me when he came down firmly on the side of Caiaphas the high priest who, by executing Jesus, was "really only doing his duty and was more or less justified because of the threat to the temple that Jesus seemed to pose". I was put in mind of a High court judge in Texas or similar sentencing a trouble-making hoodlum. The lack of vision was startling and almost horrifying.
I learnt one thing from this book: that it is not possible to get anywhere near the historical Jesus by so prosaic an analysis of the "facts". Just as Caiaphas, who was there, did not in any way understand the meaning of Jesus' life and teaching neither does E.P Sanders.
Of the two versions I have to say that I appreciated Crossan's book very much more despite it's length and sometimes tedious repetitions. He pares the texts ruthlessly down to practically nothing but maintains a vision of a Jesus who was both revolutionary, determined and profoundly charismatic.
Not only was Sanders far less rigorous with his texts but he seemed so often to entirely miss the point by treating his texts in an utterly literal way. All along he seems to assume that the disciples, following Jesus' death, must be overestimating the charism and depth of Jesus' personality and understanding. We are then left with a Jesus who is really just an ordinary Jewish bloke with some extra skills in healing and magic and a more or less inexplicable idea of a kingdom of Heaven. He ignores crucial passages in the gospels regarding Jesus' prophecies of his own destiny - perhaps assuming, without stating the fact, that this was hindsight on the part of the authors but seems to suggest that the last supper, the agony in the garden and Jesus' burial - all discounted as historical fact by Crossan - actually took place.
Interestingly he mentions the fact that Jesus' prophecy about the fate of the temple did not come about because of the continued existence of the wailing wall. This sounds out-of-date now.
I kept on wondering why he had attempted the book in the first place: the Jesus he portrays is not really worthy of all the effort.
The crunch came for me when he came down firmly on the side of Caiaphas the high priest who, by executing Jesus, was "really only doing his duty and was more or less justified because of the threat to the temple that Jesus seemed to pose". I was put in mind of a High court judge in Texas or similar sentencing a trouble-making hoodlum. The lack of vision was startling and almost horrifying.
I learnt one thing from this book: that it is not possible to get anywhere near the historical Jesus by so prosaic an analysis of the "facts". Just as Caiaphas, who was there, did not in any way understand the meaning of Jesus' life and teaching neither does E.P Sanders.
April 6, 2024
The author clearly knows a lot about historical investigation and about the period in question, but I wonder how much he knows about people? I had a few problems with his approach.
Firstly, he interrogates at length what Jesus meant by the "Kingdom of God" and what Jesus' expectations of such were - Sanders settles on a spiritual kingdom which would exist on earth in the near future, over which God would reign. This leads him to conclude that Jesus was simply wrong in His expectations. But in coming to this conclusion, Sanders chooses not to mention at all Luke 17:21 (in which Jesus places the Kingdom either within or among His listeners). Sampson may have concluded that Luke was a late, early Christian interpretation/insert - but he chooses to ignore it, as it undermines his argument.
Secondly, Sampson tries to look for a rational motive for why the Pharisees hated Jesus - he finds no real legalistic or religious grounds for enmity in their encounters, so concludes that the Pharisees have been dealt with overly harshly by the Evangelists. But people do not need rational reasons to hate, as Shakespeare showed us in his Iago. I find it easy to believe that they simply took against him because he irritated them, or (more likely) they were jealous of him. Thus, they were wound up by his slight disagreements with their interpretations of the law, and wished him dead. That's how people operate.
Lastly, like most Christian or non-Christian enquirers into the life of Jesus, Sampson assumes that everything that Jesus said was to be taken literally or in earnest. But Jesus was clearly someone who associated with outcasts and prostitutes, he enjoyed a drink and a feast, and he was a wild visionary. How often were his comments tinged with irony, or a sense of fun, or satirical, or a flight of fancy? A historian can never reach this Jesus, although he or she has probably met a dozen people like this in the course of their lives. But life is not their subject, dry books are.
You don't find Jesus in books. However, Sampson is forced to admit that Jesus existed more or less when the Gospels say He did, enough people saw Him raised as a spiritual body to completely change the course of Sanders' subject, history.
Firstly, he interrogates at length what Jesus meant by the "Kingdom of God" and what Jesus' expectations of such were - Sanders settles on a spiritual kingdom which would exist on earth in the near future, over which God would reign. This leads him to conclude that Jesus was simply wrong in His expectations. But in coming to this conclusion, Sanders chooses not to mention at all Luke 17:21 (in which Jesus places the Kingdom either within or among His listeners). Sampson may have concluded that Luke was a late, early Christian interpretation/insert - but he chooses to ignore it, as it undermines his argument.
Secondly, Sampson tries to look for a rational motive for why the Pharisees hated Jesus - he finds no real legalistic or religious grounds for enmity in their encounters, so concludes that the Pharisees have been dealt with overly harshly by the Evangelists. But people do not need rational reasons to hate, as Shakespeare showed us in his Iago. I find it easy to believe that they simply took against him because he irritated them, or (more likely) they were jealous of him. Thus, they were wound up by his slight disagreements with their interpretations of the law, and wished him dead. That's how people operate.
Lastly, like most Christian or non-Christian enquirers into the life of Jesus, Sampson assumes that everything that Jesus said was to be taken literally or in earnest. But Jesus was clearly someone who associated with outcasts and prostitutes, he enjoyed a drink and a feast, and he was a wild visionary. How often were his comments tinged with irony, or a sense of fun, or satirical, or a flight of fancy? A historian can never reach this Jesus, although he or she has probably met a dozen people like this in the course of their lives. But life is not their subject, dry books are.
You don't find Jesus in books. However, Sampson is forced to admit that Jesus existed more or less when the Gospels say He did, enough people saw Him raised as a spiritual body to completely change the course of Sanders' subject, history.
October 10, 2017
I added this to my booklist years ago when I was looking for information relating to a unique theory about Jesus I had heard on some TV show that I only heard part of. I finally found the book I thought I wanted, and this wasn’t it. However, I kept it on the list for comparison purposes, if nothing else.
This is a strictly historical study of the life of Jesus. It looks lightly at some of the theological and doctrinal issues of Christianity but does not go deeply into those, as its primary purpose is to recount the history of the time.
The author’s primary sources were the Gospels and the letters of Paul. He supplemented these with the works of Josephus and some other material on Palestine during the Roman period. His dating of the Gospels and the letters of Paul differs somewhat from what I had read from other sources, and he played down the influence of the Roman occupation of Jerusalem and Galilee and also the possible influence of groups like the Zealots during Jesus’ life which other authors seem to give more weight to.
His reconstruction of how the Gospels came to be composed was interesting and sounds pretty likely. But it is kind of amazing how little really reliable historical information is available about possibly the world’s best-known figure. It is possible to reconstruct generally how Jesus taught, and the broad outlines of his life (although the birth stories seem to be largely constructed to prove associations with passages from the prophets rather than to tell an actual story of Jesus’ birth).
But, although the author examines in great detail the possible reasons for the trial and execution of Jesus, the best explanation he can come up with for why he was executed is that the high priest was worried that he might somehow cause a riot during the very crowded conditions in Jerusalem during the Passover period.
This is a strictly historical study of the life of Jesus. It looks lightly at some of the theological and doctrinal issues of Christianity but does not go deeply into those, as its primary purpose is to recount the history of the time.
The author’s primary sources were the Gospels and the letters of Paul. He supplemented these with the works of Josephus and some other material on Palestine during the Roman period. His dating of the Gospels and the letters of Paul differs somewhat from what I had read from other sources, and he played down the influence of the Roman occupation of Jerusalem and Galilee and also the possible influence of groups like the Zealots during Jesus’ life which other authors seem to give more weight to.
His reconstruction of how the Gospels came to be composed was interesting and sounds pretty likely. But it is kind of amazing how little really reliable historical information is available about possibly the world’s best-known figure. It is possible to reconstruct generally how Jesus taught, and the broad outlines of his life (although the birth stories seem to be largely constructed to prove associations with passages from the prophets rather than to tell an actual story of Jesus’ birth).
But, although the author examines in great detail the possible reasons for the trial and execution of Jesus, the best explanation he can come up with for why he was executed is that the high priest was worried that he might somehow cause a riot during the very crowded conditions in Jerusalem during the Passover period.
July 12, 2020
This book is characteristic of E.P. Sanders as a scholar. Judicious, even-handed writing and balanced conclusions. This is not a theology textbook and Sanders would be the first to tell you that (see the introduction). He also approaches the figure of Jesus without any religious presuppositions (that is, as best as he can).
Sanders is a proponent of the “Jesus within Judaism” movement of Historical Jesus studies. He wants to situate Jesus in the context of 1st century Palestine.
Strengths: Balanced and thorough approach to the text. As far as scholarly monographs go, this is also quite readable, as he makes good use of analogy and metaphor. He also summarizes other ancient material really efficiently (such as Josephus, some ancient inscriptions, and other Romans sources).
Weaknesses: The Resurrection doesn’t even get a full a chapter; he treats it in a 3 page appendix. Obviously, someone who approaches the text purely as a historian might not embrace the resurrection as enthusiastically as others, but historically speaking, the resurrection is part of the ancient texts, and an important belief among early Christians. Thus I think it warrants more discussion than Sanders gives here. This is why I gave the book 4 stars.
I disagree with some of Sanders conclusions throughout the book, sometimes on historical grounds and other times on religious grounds. Nevertheless, these conclusions are always carefully considered and reasonable in light of the evidence he gives.
Sanders is a proponent of the “Jesus within Judaism” movement of Historical Jesus studies. He wants to situate Jesus in the context of 1st century Palestine.
Strengths: Balanced and thorough approach to the text. As far as scholarly monographs go, this is also quite readable, as he makes good use of analogy and metaphor. He also summarizes other ancient material really efficiently (such as Josephus, some ancient inscriptions, and other Romans sources).
Weaknesses: The Resurrection doesn’t even get a full a chapter; he treats it in a 3 page appendix. Obviously, someone who approaches the text purely as a historian might not embrace the resurrection as enthusiastically as others, but historically speaking, the resurrection is part of the ancient texts, and an important belief among early Christians. Thus I think it warrants more discussion than Sanders gives here. This is why I gave the book 4 stars.
I disagree with some of Sanders conclusions throughout the book, sometimes on historical grounds and other times on religious grounds. Nevertheless, these conclusions are always carefully considered and reasonable in light of the evidence he gives.
June 1, 2025
For someone interested in the history not of the church and the early Christians, but rather of their role model, Jesus, lost and buried somewhere in the Bible, this is an excellent book.
By giving an understanding of the political reality of Palestine in Jesus's time as well as the Jewish religion and concepts, it gives a lot of context.
The discussion on the historical sources, and the fact that it is both unreliable, and representative of the views of Jesus's later followers, not Jesus's necessarily is also enlightening.
The book goes in detail through Jesus's actions and how he may have viewed it. From the miracles, to the concepts of the kingdom and his following or breakage from Jewish tradition. It underscores a very important point: Later Christian interpretation is not always the actual preaching or intent of Jesus
The fact that the Jewish and Christian traditions are themselves unclear about many terms and concepts is also highlighted.
The author tries to look at the whole issue from a secular lens, trying to pass off any instance of divine intervention or miracles as slight of the hand and coincidence. This is not consistent for people of faith who know God acts with his messengers many times. This book is amazing for anyone eager to understand the origins of Christianity as well as some aspects of Judaism. And it gives the Muslim a base from which he can try construct historical Isa (as) from Jesus.
By giving an understanding of the political reality of Palestine in Jesus's time as well as the Jewish religion and concepts, it gives a lot of context.
The discussion on the historical sources, and the fact that it is both unreliable, and representative of the views of Jesus's later followers, not Jesus's necessarily is also enlightening.
The book goes in detail through Jesus's actions and how he may have viewed it. From the miracles, to the concepts of the kingdom and his following or breakage from Jewish tradition. It underscores a very important point: Later Christian interpretation is not always the actual preaching or intent of Jesus
The fact that the Jewish and Christian traditions are themselves unclear about many terms and concepts is also highlighted.
The author tries to look at the whole issue from a secular lens, trying to pass off any instance of divine intervention or miracles as slight of the hand and coincidence. This is not consistent for people of faith who know God acts with his messengers many times. This book is amazing for anyone eager to understand the origins of Christianity as well as some aspects of Judaism. And it gives the Muslim a base from which he can try construct historical Isa (as) from Jesus.
January 2, 2021
This book is an interesting and well-reasoned historical account of many aspects of Jesus' life. It gives especially insightful analyses of the nature of the sources available, and of the historical context. There is coverage of how Jesus' ministry came about, the reported "miracles", views on the kingdom and prophecies, and the end of Jesus' life.
However, it seems that there are some major omissions. In particular, a historical analysis of Jesus' moral teachings. Also, there is little information about Jesus' life prior to his ministry (i.e. the final 2 or 3 years), including the birth of Jesus or what other events in his life may have lead up to his teaching: perhaps there is just little historical information here, but this wasn't clear. So for these topics, you may have to look elsewhere.
However, it seems that there are some major omissions. In particular, a historical analysis of Jesus' moral teachings. Also, there is little information about Jesus' life prior to his ministry (i.e. the final 2 or 3 years), including the birth of Jesus or what other events in his life may have lead up to his teaching: perhaps there is just little historical information here, but this wasn't clear. So for these topics, you may have to look elsewhere.
September 24, 2021
A very sober account of Jesus as a person and the times that he allegedly lived in.
The study is very thorough without being exhaustive.
It is accessible enough as an introduction on the historical Jesus.
While reading this it reminded me of the debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman.
Ehrman's explanations and arguments are very much in common with what is being presented in this book.
My only bit if criticism is that E.P. Sanders in one or two occassions seems to go for a 'quick and dirty' explanation. The crucifixion and resurrection accounts come to mind.
It would have been nice if Sanders fleshed out the parts in the New Testaments where there are big disagreements over what exactly happened.
The study is very thorough without being exhaustive.
It is accessible enough as an introduction on the historical Jesus.
While reading this it reminded me of the debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman.
Ehrman's explanations and arguments are very much in common with what is being presented in this book.
My only bit if criticism is that E.P. Sanders in one or two occassions seems to go for a 'quick and dirty' explanation. The crucifixion and resurrection accounts come to mind.
It would have been nice if Sanders fleshed out the parts in the New Testaments where there are big disagreements over what exactly happened.
December 19, 2020
Sanders analyzes The Bible as a historical text, using the rigor and methods one might ordinarily apply to any other set of ancient documents. Some perspectives on the contemporary interplay between Judaism and Christianity do feel a little dated nearly 30 years on. However, the overall treatment remains an essential, eye-opening tool for properly contextualizing the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth, and the origins of his social legacy, one that still endures many centuries later.
June 5, 2021
This was a challenging read at times, but found it thought-provoking and well-researched. The author discusses the challenges of setting dates based on conflicting sources and how the different gospels need to be seen from the perspective of the time they were written in - e.g. Some of them portray the Roman authorities in a more flatttering light, so that the new religion was not seen as a direct threat to Rome. I found the book heavy-going at times.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews