The topic is approached from the perspective of table fellowship, the primary focus being Jesus' commensality with toll collectors and sinners. The fundamental hypothesis is that Jesus typically arrived akletos at meals as an itinerant stranger, and that this explains the epithet "glutton and drunkard." Part One sets the parameters, and delineates the materials, methods, and approach adopted in the study. In Part Two, ancient traditions of hospitality and feasting are examined, providing the background material for exegesis of relevant NT texts in Part Three. It is found that toll collectors represent hosts to Jesus, while "sinners" gain entry to meals as his umbrae. Both groups are eligible for the kingdom, as are paidia (young slaves/servants), who exemplify humility. Some possible reasons are advanced for Jesus' criticism of Pharisees, but it is emphasised that they are not implicated in his death. The importance of hospitality is indicated by the fact that reception of Jesus and/or his disciples necessarily entails an invitation to a shared meal. In contrast, merely giving alms to strangers/wayfarers who seek hospitality signifies rejection. Any such breach of hospitality mores will incur harsh punishment at the final judgment. The supposition that Jesus was a guest at the Last Supper allows for an innovative interpretation of his words and actions, particularly since it is proposed that as well as the Twelve, akletoi were present, viz. women, slaves/servants, and possibly Gentiles. It is suggested that the depiction of Jesus in the Synoptics may have been influenced by a pre-existing literary archetype that facilitated the combination of some fictional characteristics with historical elements. The proposed reconstruction of the historical Jesus demonstrates the centrality of hospitality, commensality, and humility in his teaching and practice, a finding that is consistent with the ideals and table fellowship of early Christian communities. The apparent dichotomy between hospitality and hostility indicates a need to follow Jesus' injunction to love one's enemies, i.e. to practise philoxenia.

One of the most long-standing and controversial questions in historical Jesus research is that of whether Jesus was a Davidic messianic figure. This question is part of the broader ‘messianic question’, i.e., the question of whether Jesus thought of himself as a messiah and, if so, in what sense. Virtually every comprehensive work on the historical Jesus addresses this more focused Davidic messianic question at some point, as do numerous journal articles and essays in edited volumes. However, detailed studies devoted to this particular question are lacking. This dissertation is my attempt at such a study. I will divide this dissertation into two parts, each of which I believe offers a significant contribution to scholarship. The first, ‘Challenging the Status Quo’, will highlight three trends that I believe have dominated recent research on the Davidic messianic question with the aim being to demonstrate that the manner in which scholars have gone about answering this question is significantly problematic and that a fresh approach is therefore needed. I will then offer an approach that I believe will meet this need. The second part of this study, ‘The Making of Jesus the Davidic Messiah’, is where I will attempt to implement the fresh approach that I will have offered. More specifically, I will attempt to determine whether Jesus’ inner circle of disciples, i.e., the Twelve, viewed him as the Davidic Messiah and how Jesus behaved in response to this view. This group dynamic of which Jesus was a part will then serve as the basis on which I will offer my answer to the Davidic messianic question. In the end, examining this interplay between Jesus and the Twelve leads me to conclude that the historical Jesus was, in fact, a Davidic messianic figure. It would be ideal if I could convince others of this and perhaps move scholars closer to a consensus. However, even if I cannot accomplish this, it is my hope that this study will at least continue to move research on the Davidic messianic question forward.

This study asks if the historical Jesus was ever a disciple of John the Baptist, where by ‘disciple’ is meant someone who would have been in a close personal relationship to John as their leader and teacher, and who would have spent considerable time in his presence. The current majority view of scholars is that Jesus is likely to have been John’s disciple at some time before beginning his own ministry (and in the opinion of some, during the early part of his ministry too). However, this study argues that, although we cannot be sure, he is actually unlikely to have chosen to submit himself to John in this way. Reasons are provided for believing that, even early in his ministry, Jesus had a profound confidence in his (sometimes distinctive) beliefs across a range of religious issues, including those beliefs that had to do with his own extremely important place in God’s plan. It is argued too that if Jesus was ever John’s disciple, he would very probably have to have first become his disciple no more than a matter of months before beginning his own ministry. The shortness of the time in which his confidence in his religious beliefs could have developed means that, during the period in which any potential discipleship would have begun, it is probable that Jesus had at least a fairly deep assurance about what he believed in religious matters, including what he believed concerning his own crucial place in God’s plan. This assurance makes it unlikely that he would have wished to become John’s disciple. Further – related – reasons for thinking that Jesus’ discipleship is historically unlikely are also provided. These are (a) that Jesus may well have had a spiritual experience at the time of his baptism (before any discipleship could have occurred), something that would not have cohered well with a decision then to become John’s disciple; and (b) that Jesus may have spent time alone in the wilderness very soon after his baptism. In addition to presenting these arguments against Jesus’ discipleship, most of the study involves detailed examination of the most cogent arguments that have been used to support the view that Jesus was once John’s disciple. It finds that even the strongest of these are relatively weak.

The quest for the contextual meaning of the life and teaching of the historical Jesus seems to be a perennial question. Given the religious, cultural and social situation in Korea as well as in Asia generally, any theological reflection should be both contextually relevant and faithful to the Gospels. This thesis attempts to articulate the Jongshin ('Spirit or Teaching') of the historical Jesus, the Master of Christianity, using the concept of mokmin ('to serve the people'), which comes from the intellectual heritage of the Korean people, as a hermeneutical key. In the endeavour to present a mokmin perception of the historical Jesus, it is necessary to respond to minjung theology in Korea. Developed in the 1970s and 1980s in Korea when people suffered under political oppression and economic exploitation, minjung theologians found the biblical basis for their theology of liberation in their description of the historical Jesus. They perceived Jesus' status as a minjung, who identified himself with the minjung and denied himself any leadership role among the minjung. This thesis argues that we should not confuse Jesus' being and the character of his ministry. Jesus was not a minjung, but a royal figure. The perception of Jesus' mission as a minjung movement or as a minjung revolt is also refuted. Jesus' mission is characterised by his mokmin praxis in that a royal figure sided with the lowest people in the society. The mokn1in praxis of Jesus is grasped in three aspects: solidarity with the poor min ('people'), awakening the social responsibility in Jesus' community and pedagogy of the oppressors, i.e., the Jewish religious leaders and the rich in the society. First, we observe that there should be no question about Jesus' mission for the poor min. Jesus broke the social and religious barriers in Judaism to reach out and side with the poor and suffering min, which is most dramatically demonstrated in his healing ministry. Jesus became the source of hope for the poor min by taking the initiative in releasing the han ('the accumulated grief') of the people. Secondly, Jesus envisioned a society in which no status distinction among its members exists and social justice is established. For this, Jesus selected the twelve disciples as representatives of the community and as transmitters of Jesus' Jungshin, and inculcated them to embody mokmin praxis. Thirdly, Jesus demonstrated his intention to be the pedagogue of the oppressors. Jesus consistently challenged the Jewish religious leaders and the rich members of the society to accept his teaching and side with him for mokmin praxis. We perceive that Jesus' mission as the pedagogue of the oppressors was even more radical than his gesture to side with the poor min, for the cost of Jesus' pedagogy of the oppressors was his life. What we attempt to demonstrate in the thesis is not only to present an authentic and contextual perception of the Jongshin of the historical Jesus but also to expose the failure of minjung theology to present a holistic image of the historical Jesus to the Korean people. (Its historical contribution in Korea to the democratisation movement in the 1970s and 1980s is beyond the scope of our discussion.) The theological significance of this study is that the perception of the historical Jesus as mokmin Jesus provides both a biblically faithful and a contextually relevant understanding of the historical Jesus. The broader theological implication of this study is linked with the concerted effort to discover Korean questions and, furthermore, to build a Korean and an Asian way of doing Christian theology.

This study examines the occurrences of wisdom and apocalypticism in Q, and then draws conclusions from the latter about the historical Jesus. Important questions are addressed: Did Q think of Jesus as a wisdom teacher, an apocalyptic prophet, or both? If Q associated both wisdom and apocalypticism with Jesus, what was the interrelationship between these two? Did either enjoy preference, or were they equally important to the person and message of Jesus? A concerted effort is made to let Q speak for itself. If the latter were possible, how would Q and the people behind it respond to the Renewed and Third Quests for the historical Jesus? This question basically sums up the research gap, which is to provide the Sayings Gospel with an opportunity to respond to these reconstructions of Jesus. Hence, there are two levels to the present work. The first level focuses on Q in order to determine the roles of both wisdom and apocalypticism in Q. This exercise constitutes the focal point and bulk of the study, leading to the central theory: The Q people remembered and described Jesus as a sage who made use of apocalyptic eschatology to motivate and support his moral message. The acceptance or rejection of this theory will naturally have an impact on our understanding of the historical Jesus, which represents the second level of inquiry. The second level focuses on the historical Jesus, and our understanding of him, given the results obtained in this investigation of Q. The high regard for Q and the propensity to regard Q as a stratified document places this study squarely in the camp of the Renewed Quest. However, there are two aspects of the study that have affinities with the Third Quest as well. The first is the inclination to question the noneschatological image of Jesus proffered by the Renewed Quest. The second is the synchronic manner in which the study approaches Q. By preferring to ask how Q remembered and described Jesus, Q is approached in a manner reminiscent of the Third Quest’s historical method. The research gap is addressed in a systematic way. Chapter one provides a focused overview of historical Jesus research from Reimarus to the present – an endeavour that naturally leads in to a discussion of the dissertation’s research gap, focal point and central theory. In chapter two, Q is considered in its entirety, including its documentary status, its stratification, its genre, its ethnic colouring and its eschatology. Chapter three zooms in on Q’s apocalyptic-judgment and Son-of- Man sayings specifically. An exegetical examination of these logia concentrates particularly on the focal point: the interrelationship between wisdom and apocalypticism in Q. Chapter four zooms in further on a single Q saying: Q 6:37-38. The purpose remains to determine the relationship between wisdom and apocalypticism in Q. The study moves in a centripetal direction, from historical-Jesus research in general (chapter 1), to the Q document (chapter 2), to the Son-of-Man and apocalyptic-judgment logia within Q (chapter 3), to one specific logion about judgment (chapter 4). Chapter five pulls everything together by (1) assessing the central theory, (2) responding to both the Third and Renewed Quests, (3) suggesting ways to reconcile these two currents, (4) commenting on the relevance of Jesus’ wisdom and morality for today, and (5) highlighting avenues for further study. The central theory is ultimately confirmed, albeit with an important qualification: Apocalyptic eschatology also formed an integral part of the sapiential message of Q’s Jesus. In response to the Renewed Quest, it is found that apocalyptic eschatology can not and should not be divorced from the message of Q’s Jesus. In response to the Third Quest, it is found that Q’s Jesus was primarily a sage, and that his apocalyptic eschatology was not imminent in nature. Regarding the wisdom and morality of Q’s Jesus, it is found that the essence of his message remains valid. This is particularly true of the way in which he used apocalyptic eschatology to motivate and buttress his moral message. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / New Testament Studies / unrestricted

<p>This study will critically evaluate the dominant framework through which the Johannine <em>aposynagōgos</em> passages (John 9:22, 12:42, 16:2) are read. This dominant framework, which understands these passages as allegorically encoding the history of a putative Johannine community some forty to fifty years after Jesus’ lifetime, will be judged exegetically and historically implausible. An alternative reading of the passages will be developed, grounded in a philosophy of history derived from the critical realist epistemology developed by Bernard Lonergan and introduced into New Testament studies by Ben F. Meyer. It will be argued that these passages are historically plausible and that the Gospel author intended factuality and was plausibly knowledgeable on the matter. Consequently, it will be argued that a positive judgment of historicity can be assigned to these passages.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

The question "Who Jesus realy was?" is more than 250 years object of many studies. In recent years the number of scientists is increasing and it is even not possible to be experienced in all trends, methods and conclusions. In this thesis Jesus of Nazareth is depicted in the point of wiev of nowadays research and I aware of an incomplete insight into the whole issue. The aim of the thesis is to introduce to historical Jesus research. First part is constituted with theoretic-historical preliminary necessary to understand the second part. Selected questions of nowadays research are presented in the second part of the diploma thesis. The diploma thesis is concentrated on issues related to the historical Jesus in the context of the Judaism of his period and from the nowadays research's point of view. The aim is not exhaustive treatise, which is not possible due to type and scope of this thesis. The goal is to highlight some significant moments related to this issue. Whereas the aim is historical presentation of Jesus's life, there are not mentioned events comming up after the Jesus's death. This thesis introduces the issue of historical Jesus research and puts some of the moments from recent investigation. It also looks at the conclusions came out from the Jesus Seminar, which are confronted with more...

This thesis deals with an examination of influence of the Parables of Enoch on the oldest Jesus traditions. The presupposition of this examination is chronological setting of these traditions. The core of this thesis is an analysis of a selected motive in the Parables of Enoch and also in Jesus traditions. This motive is a figure of the Son of Man, which is important for both of compared materials. Then we will try to propose a possible influence of some eschatological ideas from the Parables on Jesus himself. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

When historical Jesus’ scholar, John Dominic Crossan, stated that Jesus’ resurrection appearances were apparitions and not physical appearances, was it possible to test this conclusion? To what degree are a scholar’s conclusions affected by his presuppositions? Crossan’s definition of history was that it ‘is the past reconstructed interactively by the present through argued evidence in public discourse’ (Crossan 1999:3). The outworking of this view was that the New Testament Gospels are regarded as megaparables, fictitious creations. His application of this view was, ‘Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens’ (Crossan 2012:5). A pattern emerged in which Crossan stated that he was using a method of postmodern interactivism (Crossan 1998a:42). But how is this discerned and articulated with as objective a methodology as possible? What do presuppositions of postmodern, reconstructive, interactivism do to Crossan’s conclusions regarding Jesus’ resurrection appearances? Here the parameters were restricted to literary and historical dimensions of Crossan’s speech acts. The problem investigated was to seek to identify Crossan’s presuppositions and methods in his study of the resurrection of Jesus to determine if they were valid or not when the Gospel evidence on the resurrection was considered. A presupposition-hypothesis method was used to test for verification or falsification, using a critical realist epistemology. A research gap indicated a need for a more objective model to isolate a researcher’s presuppositions of Jesus’ resurrection. The Beaver and Geurts framework (2011) was chosen that led to probability and not certainty about the content of presuppositions. Presuppositional ‘triggers’ were identified from Crossan’s resurrection data. The hypothesis tested was: J D Crossan's presuppositions and methods, in his study of the resurrection of Jesus, are not valid when the Gospel evidence on the resurrection is taken into consideration. Twenty-three presuppositions were discovered and these were developed into 18 hypotheses, three of which were tested: Hypothesis 9: The divine manifestation of Christianity for a postmodern world is deconstruction (his term is reconstruction) and it is not done once for all, but is reinterpreted for each generation’s issues. It was found that reconstruction mutilates the voice of the author by imposing an a priori metaphorical dogmatism on the text. Crossan’s postmodern, reconstructive, interactive hermeneutic was shipwrecked on the ‘rocks’ of contradiction, inconsistency and a self-defeating methodology. Hypothesis 10: The New Testament resurrection narratives are not historical documents. Crossan defined history as a postmodern reconstructionist and reached postmodern, reconstructive conclusions, thus using a question begging logical fallacy. He also did not apply this methodology consistently. Hypothesis 12: It does not matter what a person believes about whether Jesus’ tomb was empty or not; the importance is its meaning, which is independent of factuality. Crossan imposed his own understanding of the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection through his use of free play, relativistic, multivalent, postmodern, nonsupernatural stratagem on the text. Thus, Crossan’s idiosyncratic meanings replaced objective, hermeneutical testing of the text of Scripture. Therefore this dissertation’s hypothesis was verified. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2015. / tm2015 / New Testament Studies / PhD / Unrestricted

The objective of this study is to investigate if the historical Jesus was a tax resister and what the motives may have been for that. The study presents a survey of the ancient Galilean economy, with a focus on the taxes paid by the general population, and looks at ancient tax resistance movements in the Galilean community and nearby. Three gospel texts containing accusations of Jesus for tax resistance are analyzed in detail. The study shows that it is reasonable to suggest that the historical Jesus resisted the payment of taxes to the Roman (and possibly Herodian) authorities, based on that Jesus sympathized with the same agendas as the fourth philosophy did, and that Jesus had a compassion for the peasants who lived under an exploiting taxation.