To begin with, it is necessary to emphasize that Jesus, as a historical personality originates too many disputes in the academic literature. The only fact, which is not doubted, is the fact of his existence. The historical Jesus is the personality that is mentioned in the documents of the first century. Originally, this fact is reconstructed by critics and historians, who had studied and deeply researched the gospel texts, which are regarded as the primary source for his biography. They had also studied non-biblical sources for the matters of the historical and cultural context of the period of Jesus’ life.
Originally, it should be stated that all the sources (both Biblical and non-biblical) claim that Jesus was a Jewish teacher, who was able to attract disciples from the Galilean people, and after some period of preaching, he was crucified by Romans after the sentence by Pontius Pilate. As Peabody (2001, p. 163) stated, historians often regard Jesus in the following light: “The historical Jesus was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations. According to the testaments, he was baptized by John the Baptist, and, after John was executed, Jesus Christ started his own mission. He preached the Kingdom of God and was renowned as a teacher and a healer. The fact is that scholars often attribute to his preaching of Kingdom of God the apocalyptic nature, while others depict that his Kingdom of God is not apocalyptic.” These are the historically confirmed facts, and it is known that the appearance of this person in history is featured with a certain aim. It should be stated that even in spite of the fact that various miracles are not registered in historical sources, the witnesses claim that miracles took place, and thus, there is no necessity to deny them. Jesus Christ’s message was aimed at spreading the new teaching, the new religion, philosophy, and principles of life. Surely, few people would follow him if he did not prove the righteousness of his words. According to Perkins (2003, p.152), all the miraculous curing processes, the transformation of the water into wine, and other “tricks” are often regarded in the literature as the ancient knowledge, which Jesus could attain while traveling to Asia (in the period between his 20 and 30 years), while this period is not pointed in the Bible.
He intended to direct his message for creating the new temple: the temple of soul and Kingdom of God; thus, he sent his apostles to heal the people’s souls and to preach the Kingdom of God. (Peabody, 2001, p.148) However, this intention was regarded as the claim to rebellion and the claim to destroy the temple in Jerusalem. It was the period when political and religious tensions were rather high in Jerusalem; that is why the sentence was the hardest. Nevertheless, his mission also included giving the message of love, mercy, and compassion to people. Probably, it was the key message for all his words, as he told manly of love: the love of God to people, the love of people o God, and about himself as the joining link of this love. History does not know any other leader who could inspire people by words of love only. As Hoffman (2004, p.239) stated, people believed that Jesus could lead them to the Kingdom of God. In spite of the fact that his mission and role in history are not registered in historical sources, his mission for humanity still stays open in academic resources.
Finally, it should be stated that according to Hoffman (2004, p.31), Jesus’ existence can not be denied only because of the fact that his life before 30 is not described. These arguments represent nothing except the ignorance of the researchers. Almost two billion Christians can not be mistaken.
References
- Hoffmann, R. Joseph, and Gerald A. Larue, eds. Jesus in History and Myth. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004.
- Peabody, Francis Greenwood. Jesus Christ and the Social Question: An Examination of the Teaching of Jesus in Its Relation to Some of the Problems of Modern Social Life. New York: Macmillan, 2001.
- Perkins, Pheme. “Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition.” Theological Studies 60.1 (2003): 152.