The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus

Craig A. Evans, Craig A. Evans

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317722236
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

This Encyclopedia brings together the vast array of historical research into the reality of the man, the teachings, the acts, and the events ascribed to him that have served as the foundational story of one of the world's central religions. This kind of historiography is not biography. The historical study of the Jesus stories and the transmission of these stories through time have been of seminal importance to historians of religion. Critical historical examination has provided a way for scholars of Christianity for centuries to analyze the roots of legend and religion in a way that allows scholars an escape from the confines of dogma, belief, and theological interpretation. In recent years, historical Jesus studies have opened up important discussions concerning anti-Semitism and early Christianity and the political and ideological filtering of the Jesus story of early Christianity through the Roman empire and beyond. Entries will cover the classical studies that initiated the new historiography, the theoretical discussions about authenticating the historical record, the examination of sources that have led to the western understanding of Jesus' teachings and disseminated myth of the events concerning Jesus' birth and death. Subject areas include:

• the history of the historical study of the New Testament: major contributors and their works
• theoretical issues and concepts
• methodologies and criteria
• historical genres and rhetorical styles in the story of Jesus
• historical and rhetorical context of martyrdom and messianism
• historical teachings of Jesus
• teachings within historical context of ethics
• titles of Jesus
• historical events in the life of Jesus
• historical figures in the life of Jesus
• historical use of Biblical figures referenced in the Gospels
• places and regions
• institutions
• the history of the New Testament within the culture, politics, and law of the Roman Empire.

A

ABIATHAR

Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech and (high) priest under David (1 Sam 22:22–23). He is mentioned by Jesus in a dispute with Pharisees over picking grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28). Mentioning Abiathar, rather than Ahimelech, as the “high priest” when David and his men were given sacred bread is problematic. According to 1 Sam 21:1–6 Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was priest when approached by David. This discrepancy has led some scholars to conclude that either Jesus himself was mistaken or that the Markan evangelist (or tradents before him) was mistaken.

The Markan evangelist reports Jesus as saying:

Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?

(Mark 2:25–26)

Sensing the difficulty, the Matthean evangelist abridges the saying:

Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?

(Matt 12:3–4)

The Lukan evangelist edits the saying in a similar fashion (Luke 6:3–4). Conspicuous is the omission of the phrase “when Abiathar was high priest.” Indeed, some manuscripts of Mark also omit the phrase (e.g. D W 1009 1546).

It would seem that the Matthean and Lukan evangelists, as well as several later copyists, sense the difficulty of the form of the saying in Mark. However, asserting that either Jesus or the Markan evangelist was mistaken does not adequately reckon with the complexities of this interesting problem.

In all probability, the solution to the problem lies in the recognition that there seem to have been two traditions with regard to the priestly figures Ahimelech and Abiathar. The major tradition narrates Abiathar as the son of Ahimelech. Accordingly, the latter is the priest who gave the bread to David and his men. This is the tradition of 1 Sam 21–22. But there is also a minor tradition, in which Ahimelech (or Abimelech in some manuscripts) is said to be the son of Abiathar, who survives and serves David alongside Zadok (2 Sam 8:17; 1 Chr 18:16; 24:3–31; contrast 1 Kgs 4:4, where it is Abiathar who serves alongside Zadok; see also 4Q245 frag. 1, col. i, line 7). The saying attributed to Jesus (whether uttered by Jesus or supplied by the Markan evangelist) apparently reflects the minor tradition (so Mulholland).

The diversity of the narrative traditions preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls should caution against a reductionist approach. The Old Testament scriptures that have survived do not preserve the full range of tradition. Some of the variant traditions are hinted at here and there in the writings of Josephus, the Scrolls, and some of the writings lumped together as the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. But we only possess fragments of these diverse traditions.

Jesus’ appeal to the action of Abiathar (or Ahimelech) touched on a very sensitive issue. According to Lev 24:5–9 the twelve loaves of the Presence were sacred and were to be eaten only by the priests (Lev 24:9 “for Aaron and his sons”). David’s consumption of this sacred bread was potentially scandalous. Even in Jesus’ day there was reluctance to acknowledge this part of the story. Although he provides an enriched paraphrase of the story, Josephus carefully sidesteps mention of the bread: “He requested to receive provisions … once he had obtained these things” (Ant. 6.243–44). Josephus provides no hint that David and his men requested or ate sacred bread.

The author of Biblical Antiquities not only omits the part about David and his men receiving the sacred bread, it actually justifies the slaying of the priests, who “were profaning the holy things of the Lord and desecrating the first fruits of the people” (Ps-Philo, Bib. Ant. 63:1). Reference to “profaning the holy things of the Lord” may well have been prompted by David and his men eating the sacred bread.

Josephus and the author of Biblical Antiquities omitted the giving of the sacred bread to David and his men – probably out of religious embarrassment. This is the very point that Jesus wished to make: Special circumstances call for exceptional deeds. In view of the sensitive nature of this story, it is not difficult to see why Jesus appealed to it and why we have no indication that his critics were able to present a counter-argument.

CRAIG A. EVANS

Further reading

Evans, C. A. “Patristic Interpretation of Mark 2:26: ‘When Abiathar was High Priest’,” VC 40 (1986) 183–86.

Morgan, C. S. “When Abiathar was High Priest,” JBL 98 (1979) 409–10.

Mulholland, M. R. “Abiathar,” in Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (eds) Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992, pp. 1–2.

Rogers, A. D. “Mark 2:26,” JTS 2 (1951) 44–45.

Whitelam, K. W. “Abiathar,” in David Noel Freedman (ed.) The Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York: Doubleday, 1992, Vol. 1, pp. 13–14.

ABRAHAM

The name “Abra(ha)m” is etymologically ambiguous. The book of Genesis preserves the popular etymology that God changes Abram’s name to “Abraham” in order to represent more accurately his new status as “father of a multitude of nations” (

). However, the Talmud, suggests that “Abram” changes to “Abraham” because “at first he became a father of Aram (

), then later to the whole world” (b. Ber. 13a). At any rate, this name refers to one of the most revered characters in world history, a figure claimed by the adherents of all three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).

In the Hebrew Bible he enacts roles as “Chaldean nomad” (Gen 12:1–9; Neh 9:7), “wealthy sheikh” (13:1), “military general” (14:14), “covenant partner” (15:1–21), “father of Ishmael” (16:15), “priestly intercessor” (18:22–33), “father of Isaac” (20:3), “prophet” (20:7), “fearful husband” (20:10), “tested patriarch” (22:1–19), “servant” (Ps 105:6), and “beloved one” (Isa 41:8). Whereas the Abraham cycle in Genesis presents his life as a spiritual journey from “fear” to “faith” (Moore 35–48), the story of Abraham fits the type-scene format found elsewhere in the literary-historical context: (a) sonless patriarch suffers distress, (b) appeal to a deity for help, (c) deity responds favorably, and (d) male heir arrives (McAfee). Not only does this pattern shape the material in Genesis, it also helps shape the Canaanite myths of Kirta (CAT 1.14–16) and Dnil (CAT 1.17–18; see Hendel 37–59).

In the Second Temple period, the Abraham tradition widens considerably in response to a number of literary, political, and ideological pressures. Here Abraham assumes the roles of “seer/dreamer” (1QapGen 19:14), “prayer warrior” (20:10–29; b. Ber. 26b), “exorcist” (1QapGen 20.28–29; CD [A] 16:6), “religious enthusiast” (Josephus, Ant. 1.234), “wise man” (σοϕός, Philo, Cher. 7), “model of wisdom” (Somn. 1.70), “faithful man” (Post. 373), “perfect man” (Spec. 3.203), “philoso-pher” (Gig. 62), “son” of God (Spec. 3.27), “God’s beloved” (

, 4Q176 frgs 1–2 1:9; 4Q252 2:8; CD [A] 3:2), and “forefather” of the Arabs, Assyrians, and Africans (προπάτωρ, Josephus, J.W. 5.380; Ant. 1.214, 239–41). Among these varied roles two motifs predominate: (a) Abraham’s renouncement of idolatry, and (b) his monotheistic faith (Calvert-Koyzis 49). Muslim tafsīr (commentary) tradition preserves these motifs in order to transform Abraham into a forerunner of Muhammad (Hauglid).

The NT focuses less on the person of Abraham than the exemplary character of his faith (Gal 3:6–18; Rom 4:1–17). Like Philo (Mut. 177), Paul gravitates to Abraham’s faith-decision in Gen 15:6 (“he believed Yahweh and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” Rom 4:3). Yet where Philo draws from this passage the importance of distinguishing between “spoken faith” and “unspoken doubt,” and the Talmud interprets it within the parameters of a legal system in which “righteousness” (

) depends on human “merit” (

, b. Ber. 10b; Strack and Billerbeck 1.251), Paul cites the passage to point out that the God of Abraham reckons “righteousness” to his servant a full two chapters before he receives the mark of circumcision. Thus it cannot be the ritual of circumcision but faith itself which causes God to “reckon” Abraham as “righteous” (Levenson 272–77). For audiences used to setting Hellenized Jewish ritual within a pagan context in which the closest parallel is “ritual castration” this is a revolutionary interpretation (Elliott 233). For secularist (post)moderns, of course, this view of faith is absurd (Kierkegaard 51).

The Gospels mention Abraham several times, but two texts stand out. The first narrates the story of a poor man who dies and travels to “Abraham’s bosom” after suffering a miserable life on earth (Luke 16:19–31). Interpreters noting the “netherworld tour” format shaping this text (Himmelfarb 45–67) find parallels in Egyptian (Gressmann, cited in Bauckham), Graeco-Roman (Hock), and Attic sources (Gilmour). The last of these probably shines brightest in Luke 16. In Book 11 of the Odyssey, for example, Odysseus goes down to the netherworld in order to (a) learn about the futility of worldly wealth, (b) learn about the reality of eternal torment, and (c) learn about the plight of loved ones failing to live up to these truths (Od. 24.1–204; Gilmour 24). Just as Homer has Odysseus learn his fate from the lips of a “wise ancestor” (the blind seer Teiresias), so Luke has the rich man learn his fate from “Father Abraham.” By casting Abraham as the quintessential “wise ancestor” Luke thus underlines the lesson he wants to teach about the afterlife.

John 8:31–59 comes housed in a different format. In this text the Fourth Gospel preserves the highlights of an intense debate between Jesus and his adversaries over the validity of his claims to religious authority. Central to this debate stands a fundamental disagreement over the character of Abraham. Where his opponents claim Abraham as “our father,” Jesus rejects this claim because (a) Abraham is not a murderer, (b) Abraham is not a liar, (c) their true father is “the devil” (John 8:44), and (c) “before Abraham was, I am” (8:58).

MICHAEL S. MOORE

Further reading

Bauckham, R. “The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels,” NTS 37 (1991) 225–46.

Calvert-Koyzis, N. Paul, Monotheism and the People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions for Early Judaism and Christianity, JSNTSup 273, London: T. & T. Clark, 2005.

Elliott, S. Cutting Too Close for Comfort: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in its Anatolian Cultic Context, JSNTSup 248, Sheffield: Academic Press, 2004.

Evans, C. A. “Abraham in the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Man of Faith and Failure,” in P. W. Flint (ed.) The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature 5, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001, pp. 149–58.

Gilmour, M. J. “Hints of Homer in Luke 16:19–31,” Didaskalia 10 (1999) 23–33.

Gressmann, H. Vom reichen Mann und armer Lazarus. Eine literargeschichtlich Studie, Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaft, 1918.

Hauglid, B. “On the Early Life of Abraham: Biblical and Quranic Intertextuality and the Anticipation of Muhammad,” in J. C. Reeves (ed.) Bible and Qur’an: Essays in Scriptural Intertextuality, SBLSS 24, Atlanta, GA and Leiden: Society of Biblical Literature/Brill, 2003, pp. 87–105.

Hendel, R. S. The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel, HSM 42, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987.

Himmelfarb. M. Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.

Hock, R. S. “Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19–31,” JBL 106 (1987) 447–63.

Kierkegaard, S. Fear and Trembling, trans. W. Lowrie, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968.

Levenson, J. “Abusing Abraham: Traditions, Religions, Histories, and Modern Misinterpretations,” Judaism 47 (1998) 259–77.

McAfee, E. C. The Patriarch’s Longed-for Son: Biological and Social Reproduction in Ugaritic and Hebrew Epic, PhD dissertation, Cambridge: Harvard, 1996.

Moore, M. S. “Abraham’s Temptation,” in Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict, Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994, pp. 35–48.

Noth, M. Die Israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der Gemeinsemitischen Namengebung, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928.

Strack, H. L. and P. Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 vols, München: Beck, 1924–61.

ADAM

Adam appears first and most often in scripture in the opening chapters of Genesis (Gen 1–5). His name means “mankind” or “humanity,” and a wordplay between ’adam (Adam), ’adam (humankind), and ’adama “ground, earth,” is found through the opening Genesis narratives. Adam was the first person created: God said, “Let us make man (’adam) in our image” (Gen 1:26). The Lord formed “the man” (’adam) from the dust of the ground (’adama)” (Gen 2:7). The man’s (’adam) role was to till the ground (’adama 2:6). The man (’adam) was placed by God in the Garden of Eden to work it and care for it (Gen 2:15). Yet when the man, Adam (’adam), disobeys God, the ground (’ adama) is cursed (3:17–19). This creates hardship for the man (’adam) in working the ground (’adama).

God made a woman from his rib, a “helper suitable for him” (Gen 2:18–25, RSV). Adam called his wife Eve, “because she was the mother of all living” (Gen 3:20, RSV). God made them clothing (3:20), and together they bore a son, Cain (4:1), who would slay their second son, Abel (4:8). Later Eve bore another son by Adam, Seth (4:25), when Adam was 130 years old (5:3). After Seth was born, Adam lived another 800 years (Gen 5:4) and died at the age of 930 (5:5). Adam is depicted as the father of the human race (1 Chr 1:1; cf. Deut 4:32; Job 31:33; Hos 6:7). Even a portion of the book of Genesis is called “the book of the generations of Adam” (5:1).

Ultimately Adam is banished from the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:23). From there, biblical witness is silent, but texts from the Second Temple period attempt to answer many questions raised by the brief but important biblical narratives. Foremost among these texts are the (Greek) Apocalypse of Moses and the (Latin) Life of Adam and Eve. The former narrates the story of Adam and Eve after their expulsion from the Garden, itself the result of their disobedience (8:2; 10:2; 23:4). Adam lies ill while Eve and Seth return to the Garden to acquire healing oil from the Tree of Life. Upon his death, Adam’s spirit is taken to God where, by the petition of angels, he is forgiven and taken to the third heaven, where he looks forward to resurrection (28:4; 37:1–6; 41:3) and restoration of his former glory (39:1–3). Other Jewish texts likewise revered Adam’s perfection (Philo, Opif. 47.136–41), honor (Sir 49:16), stature (Gen. Rab. 8:1 [on Gen 1:26–28]; 21:3; [on Gen 3:22] 24:2 [on Gen 5:1]) and wisdom (Gen. Rab. 24:2 [on Gen 5:1]). It is often unclear in Qumran documents whether the respective discussions pertain to Adam or generally “man,” (both adam). In CD x.8, for example, the shortening of human lifespan is attr...