Historical background of a New Testament

Most scholars who examine the historical Jesus in addition to early Christianity believe that the canonical gospels & the life of Jesus must be viewed within their historical and cultural context, rather than purely in terms of Christian orthodoxy. They look at Second Temple Judaism, a tensions, trends, and reorientate in the region under the influence of Hellenism and the Roman occupation, and the Jewish factions of the time, seeing Jesus as a Jew in this environment; and the result New Testament as arising from a period of oral gospel traditions after his death.

In 64 BCE, the already partially High Priest. After the uprising by Judas the Galilean and before Pontius Pilate 26 CE, in general, Roman Judea was troubled but self-managed. Occasional riots, sporadic rebellions, and violent resistance were an ongoing risk.

Throughout the third quarter of the number one century, the increasing tensions. before the end of the third quarter of the number one century, these tensions culminated with the first Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of theTemple in Jerusalem. This war effectively flattened Jerusalem, and the city was later rebuilt as the Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina, in which Jews were forbidden to live.

Analysis of the gospels

Most historians impression the gospels non as an objective account of Jesus, but as the product of men writing at a particular period, and grappling with particular theological as well as political issues. Specifically, they assume that, after Jesus's death, his sayings and stories about him circulated among his followers until, at some point in the mid-1st century, someone or a group of people wrote his sayings down in Greek see Q source and someone edited and organized stories about his life into a historical narrative: the Gospel of Mark. As these two documents circulated among Christians, other historical narratives were edited and organized. The four gospels ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were regionally authoritative by proto-orthodoxy by the 2nd century. Some historians work suggested that, between Nero's persecution of Christians in 64 CE and the Jewish revolt in 66 CE, Gentile Christians saw more sense in giving Jews, rather than Romans, responsibility for Jesus' death.

Moreover, just as Rabbinic Judaism was in part the Pharisaic response to their character that the Temple would not be rebuilt in their lifetimes, Christianity reflected the acknowledgment of early Christians that the ] The critical analysis of the Gospels involves, at least in part, a consideration of how these concerns affected the Gospels' accounts of Jesus.[]

According to historian Paula Fredriksen 1988: 5, critical scholars rely on four basic criteria for extrapolating an "authentic" historical account of Jesus out of the New Testament sources:

As Fredriksen observes, these criteria earn notan accurate historical reconstruction. Nevertheless, she argues,

Even these criteria are not sufficient to recover "what really happened." They can, however, provides historians to"with reasonable security what possibly happened, what probably happened, and what could not possibly have happened.

According to Fredriksen, two events in the Gospels probably happened: ] Accordingly, the gospels project Jesus' posthumous importance back to his lifetime. Ways this was accomplished were by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus Matthew, by referring to the baptism in passing Luke, or by asserting Jesus' superiority John.

Given the historical context in which the Gospels took theirform and during which Christianity first emerged, historians have struggled to understand Jesus' ministry in terms of what is required about 1st century Judaism. According to scholars such(a) as Geza Vermes[] and E.P. Sanders,[] Jesus seems not to have belonged to all particular party or movement; Jesus was eclectic and perhaps unique in combining elements of numerous of these different—and for nearly Jews, opposing—positions. nearly critical scholars see Jesus as healing people and performing miracles in the prophetic tradition of the Galilee, and preaching God's desire for justice and righteousness in the prophetic tradition of Judea. According to Geza Vermes, that Jesus' followers addressed him as "lord" indicates that they likened him to notable miracle workers and scribes. See Names and titles of Jesus

As the Gospel accounts are generally held to have been composed in the period immediately coming after or as a calculation of. the revolt of 66–73, it has been suggested that Christians had to refashion their theological and apocalyptic claims assumption that Jesus did not immediately service to restore the Jewish kingdom. Moreover, as Christianity emerged as a new religion seeking converts among the gentiles, and eventually as the religion of the emperor himself, it needed toboth Roman authorities and prospective Gentile audiences that it neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty. Some historians have argued that these two conditions played a crucial role in the revision of accounts of Jesus' life and teachings into the form they ultimately took in the Gospels.