Abstract Seeking ‘authenticity’ in historical Jesus research is enmeshed in wider cultural shifts whereby authenticity became a prized aspect of human identity in Europe and North America over recent centuries. On the one hand, authenticity can refer to historical accuracy; on the other hand, it can refer to a moral ideal. In historical Jesus studies, authenticity as historical accuracy has mixed with the ideal of authenticity such that the latter often motivates and helps shape the former. The article recounts the historical development of authenticity becoming a prevailing moral ideal as well as some of its shifting connotations over time. It maps such shifts onto historical Jesus research in Romantic and Late Romantic periods, in the mid-twentieth century, and in contemporary debates regarding the criteria of authenticity.
Abstract A personal account of a coming to feminist consciousness as a biblical scholar and the impact of the work of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. In dialogue with Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation , the article deals with questions such as the contextual nature of biblical interpretation, the inadequacy of ‘Jesus-and-women’ approaches, the dangers of anti-Judaism, and the political and ethical consequences of seeking to recreate Jesus as a unique charismatic individual rather than investigate the historical people who were part of his emancipatory basileia movement.
Abstract The article first summarizes and embellishes Schüssler Fiorenza’s criticism of scientific and social-scientific constructions of the historical Jesus that surged in the 1990s. It then summarizes earlier investigations of popular movements contemporary with Jesus’ mission and movement and investigations of the different regional histories of Palestine that made the historical context more complicated than had been recognized. Finally, it explores several ways that Schüssler Fiorenza’s insights were prophetic in anticipating important recognitions of new possibilities in the reconstruction of the historical Jesus-in-interaction by appreciating the importance of memory in the Gospels as stories. These new possibilities are enhanced by taking into account the several interrelated lines of new research into ancient communication media that are challenging the problematic standard assumptions, approaches, and controlling constructs in the field of New Testament studies.
Recently, Andrew Ter Ern Loke and Nick Meader published a critique in this journal of an article in which I consider the possibility of bereavement visions as an explanation for the initial sighting of the post-resurrection Jesus by Peter (Lk. 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5) and mass delusions as an explanation for the collective sightings. Loke and Meaders’ response comes under four headings: distorted memory, bereavement hallucinations, ‘mass hysteria’ and cognitive dissonance. In each of these they seek to undermine the effectiveness of my arguments in favour of a more traditional interpretation of events. In my response I attempt to flesh out my earlier presentation and to clarify any misconceptions and misunderstandings, hoping thereby to strengthen my position. I also seek to challenge the view expressed by these scholars that contemporary events such as alleged appearances of the Virgin Mary or of Jesus himself have no relevance to my argument.
Recently, Andrew Ter Ern Loke and Nick Meader published a critique in this journal of an article in which I consider the possibility of bereavement visions as an explanation for the initial sighting of the post-resurrection Jesus by Peter (Lk. 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5) and mass delusions as an explanation for the collective sightings. Loke and Meaders' response comes under four headings: distorted memory, bereavement hallucinations, 'mass hysteria' and cognitive dissonance. In each of these they seek to undermine the effectiveness of my arguments in favour of a more traditional interpretation of events. In my response I attempt to flesh out my earlier presentation and to clarify any misconceptions and misunderstandings, hoping thereby to strengthen my position. I also seek to challenge the view expressed by these scholars that contemporary events such as alleged appearances of the Virgin Mary or of Jesus himself have no relevance to my argument.
Although the ancient church celebrated the place of Jesus' execution inside or near the basilica later built by Constantine, in the last two hundred years, some scholars have insisted on other locations. This article surveys and analyzes six suggested sites for Jesus' crucifixion (including three proposed in the nineteenth century, which remain surprisingly popular) but also argues for yet another (a seventh) topos as most likely. The investigation will lead us through a range of - mainly archaeological - evidence. My thesis is that the traditional site is near - but not identical to - the location of Jesus' death.
In Jewish religious literature of the Second Temple period, coins as physical objects were closely associated with the sins that were committed through them. Such ‘tainted money’ could bring about bad luck or divine punishment to its owner according to the mindset of the authors. Some of the religious ideals reflected in early Christian texts can be interpreted as responses to the anxiety about sinful money too. Ascetic life in desert and voluntary poverty were both capable of neutralizing the sinful nature of coins. In particular, the image of John the Baptist in New Testament texts suggests that at the core of the Baptist’s success was anxiety about sinful money.
This article reviews Fernando Bermejo-Rubio’s monograph, They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (2023). This book is the latest publication arguing for the ‘seditious Jesus’ hypothesis, the idea that Jesus was an armed revolutionary. It is argued that the volume rightly critiques some theological tendency in New Testament scholarship to downplay or ignore violence inherent in the Jesus tradition, but the argument that the men crucified with Jesus were either some of his disciples or sympathetic to his violent cause fails to convince. Despite arguing for historical minimalism in relation to the Gospel material, Bermejo-Rubio builds his case on the material he judges to be historical, but that is better explained by the imagination of the evangelists.
The present article offers a rejoinder to the reviews of the book They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha. The response replies individually to each of the essays by Christina Gousopoulos, Paul Middleton, Bruce Worthington, Warren Goldstein, and James Crossley. The important issues discussed include the relationship between History and Theology, ideological assumptions and positionality, the nature of the notion of ‘kingdom of God’, the historicity and character of the men crucified along with Jesus, the responsibility of Romans and Jewish authorities in Jesus’ (and others’) crucifixion, the causes of Jesus’ (and others’) crucifixion, the distortions and caricature of the hypothesis about a Jesus involved in anti-Roman resistance, and the potential impact and future of such a hypothesis.
This article reviews Fernando Bermejo-Rubio's monograph, They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (2023). This book is the latest publication arguing for the `seditious Jesus' hypothesis, the idea that Jesus was an armed revolutionary. It is argued that the volume rightly critiques some theological tendency in New Testament scholarship to downplay or ignore violence inherent in the Jesus tradition, but the argument that the men crucified with Jesus were either some of his disciples or sympathetic to his violent cause fails to convince. Despite arguing for historical minimalism in relation to the Gospel material, BermejoRubio builds his case on the material he judges to be historical, but that is better explained by the imagination of the evangelists.
This is a review essay of Fernando Bermejo-Rubio's book, They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance (Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2O23). The starting point for the book is the crucifixion of Jesus at Golgotha with him at the center and two bandits crucified on both sides of him. Since crucifixion was the Roman punishment for rebellion, Bermejo-Rubio conjectures that Jesus was the leader of a rebellion and that he must have had some connection with the two bandits. BermejoRubio does this to counteract the predominant narrative in the Gospels that it was the priests, elders, and the scribes who were responsible for Jesus' execution, in other words, that the Jews killed Jesus. This article argues that Bermejo-Rubio absolves the responsibility of the Jewish priest class and that it was most likely both them and the Romans who were responsible for Jesus' death.
This article reflects on the key contributions of Fernando Bermejo-Rubio's recent monograph, which offers a fresh take on the `Seditious Jesus Hypothesis' (SJH) by imagining Jesus and his collaborators as participants in an anti-Roman resistance movement. This response explores the implications of the SJH, the significance of the collective crucifixion, and inquires: what is good historiography, especially in studies of the historical Jesus?
The present article offers a rejoinder to the reviews of the book They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha. The response replies individually to each of the essays by Christina Gousopoulos, Paul Middleton, Bruce Worthington, Warren Goldstein, and James Crossley. The important issues discussed include the relationship between History and Theology, ideological assumptions and positionality, the nature of the notion of `kingdom of God, the historicity and character of the men crucified along with Jesus, the responsibility of Romans and Jewish authorities in Jesus' (and others') crucifixion, the causes of Jesus' (and others') crucifixion, the distortions and caricature of the hypothesis about a Jesus involved in anti-Roman resistance, and the potential impact and future of such a hypothesis.
In a recent article published in this journal, Stephen Smith acknowledges that bereavement hallucination is an unlikely explanation for Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, and suggests supplementing it with theories concerning collective delusion, distorted memory, and cognitive dissonance. Our response contributes to the discussion by bringing our expertise in psychology and New Testament studies together to advance interdisciplinary study on this important topic. We show that Smith's discussion confounds real-life cases and laboratory experiments on memory, and mass psychogenic illness with illusions. Moreover, Smith fails to consider a number of important differences between the case concerning Jesus' post-resurrection appearances and cases of cognitive dissonance and other psychological theories, which indicate that these theories are not plausible explanations concerning Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.
This article looks at the history of the idea of an insurgent, seditious Jesus in light of Fernando Bermejo-Rubio’s They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2023). The focus is on reading the history of scholarship in its cultural and historical contexts, looking at why the insurgent Jesus and its critics came to the fore when they did. The article ends with final reflections on the language and ideas relating to insurgency and resistance in recent years and what impact they may have on historical Jesus studies.
This is a review essay of Fernando Bermejo-Rubio’s book, They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance (Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2023). The starting point for the book is the crucifixion of Jesus at Golgotha with him at the center and two bandits crucified on both sides of him. Since crucifixion was the Roman punishment for rebellion, Bermejo-Rubio conjectures that Jesus was the leader of a rebellion and that he must have had some connection with the two bandits. Bermejo-Rubio does this to counteract the predominant narrative in the Gospels that it was the priests, elders, and the scribes who were responsible for Jesus’ execution, in other words, that the Jews killed Jesus. This article argues that Bermejo-Rubio absolves the responsibility of the Jewish priest class and that it was most likely both them and the Romans who were responsible for Jesus’ death.
This is an invited review article for Fernando Bermejo-Rubio’s book entitled They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha . Using the work of recent decolonial approaches to the study of religion, the author questions Bermejo-Rubio’s strict secular historiographical approach to historical Jesus research, looking instead for ways in which secular and theological approaches can be co-constitutive.
This article reflects on the key contributions of Fernando Bermejo-Rubio’s recent monograph, which offers a fresh take on the ‘Seditious Jesus Hypothesis’ ( sjh ) by imagining Jesus and his collaborators as participants in an anti-Roman resistance movement. This response explores the implications of the sjh , the significance of the collective crucifixion, and inquires: what is good historiography, especially in studies of the historical Jesus?
