GBPress- Gregorian Biblical Press

The Present State of the 'Third Quest' for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain
Author(s): John P. Meier
Source: Biblica, Vol. 80, No. 4 (1999), pp. 459-487
Published by: GBPress- Gregorian Biblical Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42614221 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 14:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

GBPress- Gregorian Biblical Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Biblica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Present State of the 'Third Quest'
for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain(')

The so-called thirdquest for the historicalJesus, which traces its

origins from work done by scholars like E.P. Sanders in the mid-
1980s, has been a source of controversysince its inception.The most
controversialof all its manifestationshas been the group known as
the Jesus Seminar, based in Sonoma, California(2), and co-chaired
by Dr. John Dominic Crossan and Dr. Robert W. Funk(3). The
Seminar in general and Crossan in particularhave championed a
pictureof Jesus as a Jewish-peasantequivalentof a wanderingCynic

(') As partof thecelebration of theninetieth anniversary of thefounding

of thePontificalBiblicalInstitute (May 6-8, 1999),I was invitedto address
theassembledscholarsand students on thepresent stateof theso-calledthird
questforthehistorical Jesus,particularlyin theEnglish-speaking world,and
most particularly in the United States. Consequently, I have restricted
discussionof the literature largelyto workswritten recently by English-
speaking scholars.
This decision arosefromthepurely utilitarian
goalofgiving
thisessaya necessary focusanddelimitation. No slightis intended towardthe
manyimportant scholarswritingin otherlanguages.For recentfull-length
Germancontributions thatarenowhappilyavailablein English,see J.Gnilka,
JesusofNazareth. Messageand History (Peabody,MA 1997;Germanoriginal
1993); J. Becker, Jesusof Nazareth(New York - Berlin,1998; German
original1996); G. Theissen- A. Merz, The HistoricalJesus(Minneapolis
1998; Germanoriginal1996).
I wishtodedicatethisarticletoall theJesuitprofessors,livingordeceased,
whoselectures, notes,and booksat theGregorian University andtheBiblical
Instituteguidedmefrommyfirst stepsintheological studiesup tomydoctoral
thesisin Matthew'sGospel.Theirdevotedlivesof scholarship wereandarea
shiningexampleto theirstudents of how a scholarshouldlive as a believer
and a believershouldworkas a scholar.
(2) Publicationsreflectingthe workof theJesusSeminarincludeR.W.
Funk - B. Scott - J.R.Butts, The Parablesof Jesus.Red LetterEdition
(SonomaCA, 1988); R.W. Funk - R.W. Hoover, The Five Gospels(New
York 1993); R.W. Funk and the JesusSeminar,The Acts of Jesus(San
Francisco1998).
(3) Examplesof book-length expositions by theprolificCrossaninclude
The HistoricalJesus.The Life of a Mediterranean JewishPeasant(San
Francisco1991);Jesus.A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco1994);Who
KilledJesus?(San Francisco1995); TheBirthof Christianity (San Francisco
1998).Funk'sworkis summarized in Honestto Jesus(San Francisco1996).

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
460 JohnP. Meier

philosopher(4). Jesusis depictedby Crossan as a social revolutionary

opposed to thepowers thatbe, be those powers thepriestlyhierarchy
in the Jerusalemtemple or the larger patron-clientnetworkin the
Roman Empire. An egalitarianfeminist,Jesus sought to subvertthe
hierarchicalstructuresof his day by welcoming one and all to table
fellowship and by practicingmagic as an alternativeto the temple
cult. The Seminar tends to deny any future-eschatologicalelement
in Jesus' preaching of the kingdom. With future eschatology
excluded, Jesus is seen to be calling his audience to open theireyes
to the ever-presentkingdom of God available to all in theirhuman
experience. The vaguely gnostic tone of this kerygma is not
unrelatedto the Seminar's interestin the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.
In fairness,it should be noted thatnot all membersof the Jesus
Seminar share these views, and that some members are guided in
theirresearchby intensepastoralconcerns.For instance,Dr. Marcus
Borg, a distinguishedmemberof the Seminar,seeks by his work to
help lapsed Christians rediscover Jesus as a meaningfulreligious
figure- a desire reflectedin the title of his book Meeting Jesus
Again for the First Time(5). Still, the Jesus Seminar as a whole has
faced severe criticism for its methods and conclusions. Both the
Cynic and the gnostic coloration of its portrait of Jesus are
questionable on the grounds of dating of sources and historical
context,and the wholesale eliminationof futureeschatology from
Jesus' message flies in the face of its widespreadattestationin many
differentgospel sources and literaryforms.Despite the Seminar's
protestationsto the contrary,it has not avoided the temptationof
projectinga modernAmericanagenda onto a first-century Palestinian
Jew(fi).It is no wonder, then, that some Catholic scholars in the

(4)A majorsourceofsuchan approach is theworkofF.G.Downing,Christ

and theCynics(JSOTManuals4; Sheffield 1988); id., Cynicsand Christian
Origins(Edinburgh 1992).Fora critiqueoftheapproach, see H.D. Betz, "Jesus
and theCynics:SurveyandAnalysisof a Hypothesis", JR74 (1994) 453-475;
P.R. Eddy,"Jesusas Diogenes?Reflections on theCynicJesusThesis",JBL
115(1996)449-469;forreplies, see D. Seeley,"JesusandtheCynicsRevisited",
JBL 116 (1997) 704-712;F.G. Downing,"DeeperReflections on theJewish
CynicJesus", JBL117(1998) 97-104.BesidesCrossan, scholarsassociatedwith
the"Cynicthesis"includeB. MackandL. Vaage.
(*) See, e.g., M.J.Borg, Jesus,A New Vision(San Francisco1987); id.,
Jesusin Contemporary Scholarship(Valley Forge,PA 1994); id., Meeting
JesusAgainfortheFirstTime(San Francisco1994).
C) For a detailedsurveyof theworkof Funk,Crossan,Borg,theJesus

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 461

United States, such as Luke TimothyJohnson,have questioned the

thrustnot only of the Jesus Seminar but also of the thirdquest in
general(7). The paradox here is that some Catholic critics have
adopted a new version of the once-scandalously skeptical position
of Rudolf Bultmann: the quest for the historical Jesus is both
historicallyimpossible and theologicallyillegitimate(").
Amid the thrustand parryof mutuallyexclusive positions,often
presented in sensationalistic fashion in the American media, one
mightwell ask: has anythingpositive emergedfromthe thirdquest,
or has the whole movement of the last decade been a total fiasco
and loss, as some conservative Catholics have claimed? It is the
contentionof this article that, despite the questionable use of the
media to popularize highly dubious theses, and despite the
consequent loss of academic credibilityon thepartof some scholars,
seven notable gains for serious researchhave been achieved by the
thirdquest.

I. The Ecumenical and InternationalDimension

A firstgain has been the trulyecumenical and inter-faith nature
of the presentscholarlydialogue on the historicalJesus. To a large
degree, the firsttwo quests were the work of German Protestants.
This is not said to denigratethe contributionsof great scholars of
the past, but inevitablythese two quests were colored by and mostly
restrictedto the theological concerns of ProtestantGermanyin the
late 19th and early-to-mid-20thcenturies. The wide spectrumof
scholars, Protestant,Catholic, Jewish, and agnostic, who have
participatedin the thirdquest not only in the United States but also
in Canada, Britain, Germany, and elsewhere has given an

Seminarin general,and otherparticipants in thethirdquest(includingthe

present writer)thatseeksto be eminently fairto all parties,
see M.A. Powell,
Jesusas a Figurein History(Louisville1998).
(7) L.T. Johnson,TheReal Jesus(San Francisco1996); id.,LivingJesus
(San Francisco1999); cf. R. Bultmann,Das Verhältnis der urchristlichen
Christusbotschaftzumhistorischen Jesus(Heidelberg '1962).
seekingrefugein Bultmann'
(") Interestingly, s approachhas notbeenthe
usualsolutionemployed recently by most conservative andmiddle-of-the-road
Protestant scholars;see, e.g., G.R. Beasley-Murray,Jesusand theKingdom
of God (Grand Rapids 1986); B. Witherington,III, Jesus the Sage
(Minneapolis1994); C.A. Evans, Jesusand His Contemporaries (AGJU25;
Leiden1995);C. L. Blomberg,Jesusand theGospels(Nashville1997);D.C.
Allison, JesusofNazareth.Millenarian Prophet(Minneapolis 1998).

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
462 JohnP. Meier

internationaland inter-confessionalbreadthto the thirdquest thatthe

formertwo lacked. To take but a few examples, Ben Witherington,
who has stressed the role of Jesus as wisdom teacher, is a
conservativeMethodistO; E.P. Sanders, in a sense the person who
launched the thirdquest, comes froma Methodist backgroundand
mightbest be described as a post-liberalProtestant(thougha Texan,
he taughtfor many years in Canada and England)(10);Robert Funk,
thefounderof theJesusSeminar,comes out of theDisciples of Christ
tradition;N.T. Wright,a perennialopponentof the Jesus Seminar,is
an Anglican and the Dean of Lichfield cathedral("); and writersof
such diverse views as John Dominic Crossan, Elisabeth Schüssler
FiorenzaC2), and myself come fromRoman Catholic backgrounds.
To this can be added the valuable contributions- indeed, the
decades-old impetus- of Jewishscholars such as Geza Vermes of
Oxford and more recentlyPaula Fredriksenof Boston University(").
At the beginningof Volume One of my multi-volumestudy,A
Marginal Jew, I conjured up the fantasyof an "unpapal conclave",
a committee made up of a Catholic, a Protestant,a Jew, and an
agnostic, sober historiansall, who were locked up in the bowels of
the Harvard Divinity School library,put on a spartandiet, and not
allowed to emerge until they had hammered out a consensus
document on who Jesus of Nazareth was and what he intendedin
his own time and place While not intendedliterally- though
some unfortunately took it that way - this unpapal conclave was
meant to symbolize in graphic fashionthe kind of internationaland
inter-faithcooperation on a centraland sensitivereligioustopic that
would have been inconceivable not too many decades ago.

O B. Witherington, IH, The Christologyof Jesus(Minneapolis1990);

id.,JesustheSage (Minneapolis 1994);id.,TheJesusQuest(DownersGrove,
IL 1995).
('") E.P. Sanders,Jesusand Judaism (Philadelphia1985); TheHistorical
FigureofJesus(London1993).
(") N.T. Wright,Jesusand theVictory of God (Minneapolis1996V
O2)E. Schüssler Fiorenza,In Memoryof Her (New York 1987); id.,
Jesus.Miriam'sChildand Sophia'sProphet(New York1994).
O G. Vermes,JesustheJew(Philadelphia 1973);id.,Jesusand theWorld
ofJudaism 1983);id.,TheReligionofJesustheJew(Minneapolis
(Philadelphia
1993); P. Fredriksen,FromJesusto Christ(New Haven- London1988).
(u) J.P.Meier,A MarginalJew.Rethinking theHistoricalJesus(Anchor
Bible Reference 2 vols.;New York1991,1994)I, 1-2.
Library;

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 463

Indeed, in the face of regularlyrecurringannouncementsof the

demise of the historical-critical method,it should be pointedout that
it is preciselyhistoricalcriticismthathas made thisdialogue possible
across confessional borders by creating a level playing field of
research with agreed-upon rules for the procedures of historical
inquirythat all can share. It is, afterall, historical-criticalresearch
that enables scholars of vastly different backgrounds and
commitmentsto propose, test, and adjudicate claims in the public
arena by commonly accepted criteria.In fact, it is this maturing,
ratherthan waning, of historical-criticalresearch that has enabled
scholars like Sanders to be much more careful than their
predecessorsabout distinguishingstrictlyhistoricalclaims, verifiable
by any disinterestedpractitionerof the academic discipline of
history,fromtheological claims that may be perfectlytrue but that
are known and held by faith.
It is only in the light of this rigorous application of historical
standardsthat one comes to see what was wrong with so much of
the firstand second quests. All too often,the firstand second quests
were theological projects masqueradingas historicalprojects. Now,
there is nothing wrong with a historicallyinformedtheology or
christology;indeed, they are to be welcomed and fostered.But a
christologythatseeks to profitfromhistoricalresearchinto Jesus is
not the same thingand mustbe carefullydistinguishedfroma purely
empirical,historicalquest for Jesus thatprescinds fromor brackets
what is known by faith. This is not to betray faith. It is only to
recognize and honor the proper academic distinctionsthat have
created separate departmentsof theology and history at major
universities,each with its own proper scope, sources, methods,and
criteriaof validation. It is this clarificationof distinctmethodsand
goals thathas made thepresent-dayinter-faith collaborationpossible.
Justas the historicalJesus should not have been used as a stalking-
horse fornineteenth-century liberal Protestanttheologyin Germany,
so it should not be used today as a stalking-horsefor a particular
philosophy of language, a particularbrand of liberationor feminist
theology,or indeed one particularschool of late twentieth-century
Catholic theologyor practice.Let the historicalJesus be a trulyand
solely historical reconstruction, with all the lacunae and truncations
of the total realitythat a purely historical inquiry into a marginal
figure of ancient historywill inevitably involve. After the purely
historicalproject is finished,there will be more than enough time

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
464 JohnP. Meier

to ask about correlations with Christian faith and academic

christologyCO-

IL Clarificationof the Question of Reliable Sources

A second gain has been a critical rethinkingand reexamination
of the various textsproposed as reliable sources forthe quest(l6). In
the last few decades, practicallyevery source imaginable has been
exploited by one or anotherscholar.The Jesus Seminar has elevated
the Coptic Gospel of Thomas to a coequal status with the four
canonical gospels in a book appropriatelyentitledThe Five Gospels.
Actually,when one considers how John'sgospel is largelydismissed
by the Seminar, the book should have received the more pedestrian
title of The Four Gospels : the Synoptics plus Thomas. In addition
to Thomas, Crossan has highlighted the 2d-centuryapocryphal
Gospel of PeterQ1). WithinPeter,Crossan detects a primitiveCross
Gospel thathe claims is the key source of the Passion Narrativesof
all four canonical gospels. Pushing this romance with apocryphal
gospels to the extreme,Richard Bauckham has appealed not only to
the Gospel of Peter but also to the ProtevangeliumJacobi and the
Greek InfancyGospel of Thomas to help resolve the question of the
brothersand sisters of Jesus In my view, if we can use the
InfancyGospel of Thomas, we can use Alice in Wonderlandjust as
well. As for the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, the careful saying-by-
saying analysis of Michael Fieger persuades me that this gnostic
gospel did know at least some of the canonical gospels (19). In the
Synoptic-likesayings,it oftenpresentsa conflationof Matthewand
Luke, rewrittenfroma gnosticperspective.Hence it cannot serve as
an independentsource.
In the face of this uncriticalrompingthroughthe apocrypha,I
would urge a returnto sobriety.It is a reasonable conclusion of
historical-criticalresearch- and not a ploy of apologetics - that

(") On thiswholequestion, see Meier,A MarginalJew,I, 196-201.

( ) To avoidmultiplyingnotes,I referthereaderto thereferences
listed
in mytreatment of thesourcequestionin A MarginalJew,I, 41-166.
(") J.D.Crossan, TheCrossThatSpoke(San Francisco1988).
('*) R. Bauckham,"The Brothers and Sistersof Jesus:An Epiphanian
Responseto JohnP. Meier",CBQ 56 (1994) 686-700.See myresponse in"On
RetrojectingLaterQuestionsfromLaterTexts:A ReplytoRichard Bauckham",
CBQ 59 (1997) 511-527.
(") M. Fieger,Das Thomasevangelium (NTAbh22; Münster1991).

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 465

the four canonical gospels are the only lengthycontinuoussources

for the historicalJesus thathave come down to us. To be sure, the
canonical gospels are permeated with the Easter-faithof the early
church and must be carefullysifted with the criteriaof historicity
- of which more anon. But when so sifted,theyremain our main
sources, if also our main problem. Moreover, I readily grantthat
John'sGospel, the supremeexample of systematictheologyand high
christologyamong the fourgospels, presentsspecial difficulties.Yet,
in my opinion, nuggets of important factual informationare
preserved in Johnratherthan the Synoptics. These nuggetsinclude
Jesus' close connectionwiththecircle of Johnthe Baptist's disciples
before his own ministrybegan, his practice of baptizing followers
duringhis ministry,his frequenttripsto Jerusalem,the durationof
his ministryover a numberof years, the correctchronologyof the
Passion, and the non-Passover natureof the Last Supper. Certainly,
the discourses in the FourthGospel are, in theirpresentform,largely
the product of the theology and perhaps the homilies of the
Johanninecommunity.But even here, individual logia can provide
independentattestationof sayings also found in the Synoptics.John
12,25 on losing and keeping one's life (cf. Mark 8,35 parr.; Matt
10,39; Luke 9,24; 14,26) is a strikingcase in point.
As for the rest of the NT, the debate over the extentto which
Jesus' sayings (and a few facts about him) have been preservedin
the Epistles, Acts, or Book of Revelation has been extensive and
lively,thoughI tend towarda minimalisticview, feelingsure of only
a few clear examples, mainly in Paul (1 Cor 7,10-11; 9,14; 11,23-
26; see also Rom 1,3; 15,8; 1 Cor 15,3-5; also James 5,12; Heb
7,14; 5,7-8; Rev 3,3; 16,15). Outside the NT, while one may argue
for the authenticityand independence of a few agrapha, the only
significantindependentsource is Josephus' TestimoniumFlavianum
in Book 18 of his JewishAntiquities(18.3.3 §63-64). While debate
continuesover thispassage, I am heartenedby the factthata number
of recent scholars have basically accepted something like my
suggested reconstructionof the authenticcore text(20).
TheJesusQuest,162-163,276 n. 1; B.D.
O See, e.g., Witherington,
Ehrman,TheNew Testament. A Historical
Introduction
to theEarlyChristian
Writings(New York- Oxford1997) 189. Whileadmitting thatmyapproach
hassimplicity Theissen- Merz,TheHistorical
initsfavor, Jesus,65-74,prefer
a hypothetical
reconstruction
thatwouldhave been neutralor even positive
towardJesus;however, theydo notoffertheprecisewording of sucha text
forconsideration.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
466 JohnP. Meier

But with Josephus,I tend to thinkthat we have exhausted our

independentextracanonical sources. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger
reflectinstead what theyhave heard Christiansof theirown day say.
Despite various claims, no early rabbinictext(the earliestbeing the
Mishna, composed ca. A.D. 200) contains informationabout Jesus,
and later rabbinic texts simply reflectknowledge of, and mocking
midrash on, Christiantexts and preaching.
In brief,the real gain here has been a more careful evaluation
and critical use of our main sources in the NT along with a more
confidentacceptance of the core text of Josephus' Testimonium,a
small but precious piece of independent attestation to Jesus'
existence, ministry,and fate. Even if we wind up rejectingmost of
the other sources proposed by various recent scholars, the critical
self-awarenessof why we reject them is itselfa gain.

III. A More Accurate Picture of Palestinian Judaism

A thirdgain of the presentquest is a much more nuanced and
variegatedpictureof Judaismat the timeof Jesus.Withouttoo much
exaggeration,I thinkit could be said that many portraitsof Jesus
drawn by the firstand second quests are automaticallyvitiatedby
the hopelessly outdatedand at times viciously distorteddescriptions
of first-centuryJudaism that shape or warp these portraits.If the
study of Jesus the Jew is to be takenseriouslyas a historicalproject,
then the Judaismof the firstcenturymust be taken seriously in all
its complexity and richness. It cannot be exploited simply as a
negative backdrop,forinstanceas the religionof a fearsome,distant
God who demands works-righteousness, against which the merciful
Jesus, preaching the gospel of love, is then made to stand out and
shine. Whether one looks at the Jesus of Rudolf Bultmann or the
Jesus of GüntherBornkammor the Jesus of JoachimJeremias,one
cannot help but feel thata lst-centuryJew is being stretchedout on
the procrusteanbed of a German-Evangelicalunderstandingof the
theology of St. Paul(21).
Perhaps, then,the single greatestjustificationof the thirdquest
is its attempt to undo the caricatures of Judaism perpetrated
consciously or unconsciouslyby the firsttwo quests. Of course, this

(2I) See, e.g., R. Bultmann,Jesusand the Word(London 1934); G.

Bornkamm, JesusofNazareth(New York1960);J.Jeremias, NewTestament
Theology. VolumeOne: The Proclamationof Jesus(London1971).

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Third Quest' fortheHistoricalJesus 467

via negativa of rejectingthe distortionsof Judaismin the firsttwo

quests does not guaranteea clear and uncontestedpictureof Judaism
in contemporaryresearch. One need only survey the competing
portraitsof the Pharisees drawn by Morton Smith, Jacob Neusner,
E. P. Sanders,AnthonySaldarmi,Shaye Cohen, Steve Mason, Günter
Stemberger,and Roland Deines to appreciate the wittyremarkof
Prof.JosephSievers: we know considerablyless about the Pharisees
than an earlier generation "knew"(22). Nevertheless, there is a
positive gain here. One cannot read such works as Sanders's
Judaism: Practice and Belief or Vermes'sJesus theJew and proceed
to repeat the caricaturesof Judaismthatused to make it the perfect
foil of Jesus or Christianity.One is instead challenged to explain
where on the complex and confusingmap of first-century Judaism
one intends to locate Jesus. In my opinion, the phrase "Jesus the
Jew" has become an academic cliché. The real challenge is to unpack
thatphrase and specify what sort of lst-centuryJew Jesus was(23).

(22)For a fewexamplesof thehugeliterature on thesubject,see,e.g.,M.

Smith,"PalestinianJudaismin the First Century",Israel: Its Role in
Civilization(ed. M. Davis) (New York 1956) 67-81; S.J.D. Cohen, "The
SignificanceofYavneh:Pharisees, RabbisandtheEndofJewish Sectarianism",
HUCA55 (1984) 27-53;id.,FromtheMaccabeestotheMishnah(Philadelphia
1987) 124-164; A.J. Saldarini, Pharisees , Scribes and Sadducees in
PalestinianSociety(Wilmington, DE 1988); E.P. Sanders,JewishLawfrom
Jesusto theMishna(London1990)97-254;id.,Judaism. Practice& Belief63
BCE-66CE (London 1992) 380-451;J. Neusner,The RabbinicTraditions
about the Phariseesbefore70 (3 vols.; Leiden 1971); id., "Mr. Sanders'
PhariseesandMine",SJT44 (1991) 73-95;id.,"TheMishnain Philosophical
Contextand Outof CanonicalBounds",JBL 112 (1993) 291-304;S. Mason,
Flavius Josephuson the Pharisees(SPB 39; Leiden 1991); C.A. Evans,
"Mishnaand Messiah Tn Context':Some Commentson JacobNeusner' s
Proposals", JBL 112 (1993) G.
267-289; Stemberger, JewishContemporaries
of Jesus. Pharisees , Sadducees, Essenes (Minneapolis1995). For a
Forschungsgeschichte on thePhariseesup to the 1950s,see R. Deines,Die
Pharisäer(WUNT 101; Tübingen1997). A sobercounterbalance to Deines'
relativeoptimismaboutidentifying the Phariseesand Pharisaicteachingis
foundin J.Sievers's fineessay,"WhoWerethePharisees?" Hilleland Jesus
(ed. J.H.Charlesworth- L.L. Johns)(Minneapolis1997) 137-155.On p.
138 he remarks: "Afterovertwodecadesof research[fromJacobNeusnerto
SteveMason],thereis at leastone assuredresult:we knowconsiderably less
aboutthePhariseesthanan earliergeneration 'knew'".
(M)On thevexedproblem ofJewishidentityin thefirst
centuriesB.C. and
A.D., see S.J.D.Cohen,TheBeginnings ofJewishness: Boundaries, Varieties,
Uncertainties Cultureand Society31; Berkeley- Los Angeles-
(Hellenistic
London1999).

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
468 JohnP. Meier

It was precisely to underlineand pose that question as sharply

as possible thatI chose theprovocativetitleof my series,A Marginal
JewQ4). "Marginal" was my way of tryingto pose the problem of
Jesus' precise place on the map of Judaismwithoutresortingto the
strategy of speaking about "Judaisms" in the plural, a popular
locution in the United States today("). While understandableas a
way of overcominga naïve idea of some sortof monolithicJudaism
in the 1st century,"Judaisms" strikesme as a questionable usage.
After all, Christianity and indeed Catholicism display today
remarkablevarietiesof expressionand practice,yetfew if any would
want to condemn academics to speak constantlyof "Christianities"
and "Catholicisms," however much the use of those phrases now
and then might help highlightall the diversityhiding under the
singular noun. Similarly, in the face of Orthodox, Conservative,
Reform,and Reconstructionist Judaism,we still tend to speak in the
singular of "modern Judaism". So too, in my opinion, there is a
justificationfor speaking of "ancient Judaism". Most lst-century
Palestinian Jews, for all theirdifferences,agreed upon such basics
as Yahweh, the one true God who had chosen his people Israel, as
well as on the importance of circumcision, the food laws, the
Jerusalemtemple,and the Mosaic Torah. Hence, despite the endless
quarrels over various practices,there was a "mainstream"Judaism
to which Jesus both belonged and yet over against which he
consciously made himselfmarginalin various respects(M). It is that
paradox in the Jewishnessof Jesus thatneeds to be taken seriously
and explored in the context of present-day reconstructionsof
Palestinian Judaismat the turnof the era. To return,though,to my
main point: the thirdquest deserves creditfor its earnestattemptto
sketch a historicallyaccurate portraitof lst-centuryJudaismin all

(") I use "marginal Jew"notas an answerto thequestionbuta wayof

posingthe question.WhatI definitely do not intendby thephraseis any
attenuation or eliminationof thetrueJewishness of Jesus.Afterall, froma
sociologicalpointof view,thesectariansat Qumran can be labeled"marginal"
Jews,yetno one wouldquestiontheintensity and commitment of theirform
of Judaism.
(") See, e.g.,J.Neusner- W. S. Green- E, Frerichs(eds.),Judaisms
and TheirMessiahsat the Turnof the ChristianEra (Cambridge1987);
Neusnergivesa spiritedand nuanceddefenseof thelocution"Judaisms" in
his preface, pp. ix-xiv.
C) Somewhatsimilarly, Sandersarguesfor a "commonJudaism"in
Judaism. Practice& Belief,45-303.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 469

its diversityand vitalityand to situate Jesus the Jew firmlywithin

thatportrait.

IV. New InsightsfromArchaeology,Philology,and Sociology

Connected with a betterunderstandingof Judaismat the turnof
the era is the fourthgain of the presentquest: the intenseuse of new
insights garnered from archaeology, philology, and sociology to
locate Jesus more concretelyin his time and place. While one can
only be amused by the outlandish claims of some scholars about
Jesus' connectionwithQumran(27),Qumran studieshave indeed shed
light,not so much on Jesus himself as on the religious milieu in
which he operated(2"). Still, some surprising parallels between
Qumran and the gospels temptone to speculation. For instance,in
its listingof the various miracles thatGod will work in the days of
the Messiah, 4Q521 displays a tantalizingsimilarityto Jesus' reply
to the disciples of John the Baptist in Matt 11,2-5 parr.,complete
with echoes of the prophetIsaiah and referencesto restoringsight
to the blind and raising the dead. Especially strikingis how both
texts,rightafterthe wonder of raisingthe dead, mentionthe further
wonder of bringing good news to the poor (or: meek)(w). In a
differentvein, documentslike 4QMMT, the Temple Scroll, and the
Damascus Document have underlinedthe importanceof hãlõkâ for
pre-70 Judaismin general and the Essenes in particular(30).In some

(") See, e.g. B.E. Thiering,Jesusand theRiddleoftheDead Sea Scrolls

(San Francisco1992);R.H. Eisenman, James,theBrother ofJesus(NewYork
1996).
(*) Fromthevastliterature on thesubject,
see,e.g.,J.Murphy-O'Connor,
"Qumranand the New Testament", The New Testament and Its Modern
Interpreters (ed. E.J. Epp - G.W. MacRae) (Atlanta1989) 55-71; J. A.
Fitzmyer, Responsesto 101 Questionson theDead Sea Scrolls(New York-
Mahwah,NJ 1992); J.J.Collins, The Scepterand theStar (AnchorBible
Reference Library;New York 1995); id., "Ideas of Messianismin theDead
Sea Scrolls", The Dead Sea Scrolls and ChristianFaith (ed. J.H.
Charlesworth- W.P. Weaver)(Harrisburg, PA 1998)20-41;H. Stegemann,
TheLibraryof Qumran(GrandRapids1998).
(N) Amidall thesimilarities, one mustalso honestlynotethedifferences.
In theMattheantext,proclaiming good news to thepooris theclimaxand
conclusionofthelist.4Q521 breaksoffsoonafter mentioningtheproclamation
ofgoodnewsto thepoor,butapparently othersavingactsofGod werelisted.
(w) On 4Q521, see E. Puech, "Une apocalypsemessianique(4Q521)",
RevQ 15, no. 60 (1992) 475-522;J.D. Tabor - M.O. Wise, "4Q521 'On
Resurrection' and the SynopticGospel Tradition.A Preliminary Study",

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
470 JohnP. Meier

cases, theyshed importantlighton the various Streitgesprächein the

gospels thatinvolve legal problems,the hotlycontestedquestions of
divorce and Sabbath observance being prime examples(3I).
Qumran has also been of great importance for a better
understandingof PalestinianAramaic. To take but one example: the
occurrence of mãrp ("Lord") in the absolute, unmodifiedstate in
the Targum of Job (llQtgJob 24,6-7) as a titleforGod gives the lie
to the old claim of Bultmannthat such a usage was unthinkableas
a title for Yahweh in Palestinian Judaism(32). It also raises the
intriguingpossibilitythatthe one and the same Aramaic word was
used as a title of respect for, and even faith in, Jesus during his
public ministry,that it was then used as a transcendenttitlefor the
risen Jesus in the cultic cry Maranatha fromthe very firstdays of
Jewish-Christianbelief and worship,and that it stands behind and
helps explain the widespread use of kyrios for Jesus in the New
Testamentwritings.Quite probably,PalestinianJewsforJesuscalled
him mãrP during his public ministryjust as the same Jews, now
Jews for the risen Lord Jesus, invoked him as mãrP afterEaster.
Beyond such individualphilological points is the largerquestion
of ideas about the Messiah or Messiahs (here the plural is quite
appropriate)circulatingamong Palestinian Jews around the time of
Jesus. The documents found at Qumran have reinforcedwhat was
already evident fromthe OT pseudepigraphain general: there was
no one normativeview of a Messiah at the turnof the era. Rather,
various views about the Messiah or Messiahs competed or meshed
in the minds of those Jews interestedin the question. Not everyJew

Journal fortheStudyofthePseudepigrapha 10 (1992) 149-162;Collins, The

Scepterand theStar,117-122;C.A. Evans, "Jesusand theDead Sea Scrolls
fromQumranCave 4", Eschatology, Messianism,and theDead Sea Scrolls
(ed. C.A. Evans - P.W. Flint) (GrandRapids1997) 91-100,est).95-97.
(") On thequestionofthesimilarity oftheprohibition
ofdivorcebyJesus
(Mark 10,2-12;Matt5,32 II Luke 16,18;cf. 1 Cor 7,10-11)to prohibitions
present in someofthedocuments foundat Qumran(llQTemple57,17-19;CD
4,20-5,10),see J.A. Fitzmyer, "The MattheanDivorceTextsand Some New
Palestinian Evidence",To AdvancetheGospel(GrandRapidsJ1998)79-111.
On Sabbathobservance in theteachingof Jesusand theEssenes,see Meier,
A MarginalJew,II, 756-757n. 146.
(") See J.A. Fitzmyer,'The ContributionofQumran AramaictotheStudy
of theNew Testament", A Wandering Aramean(SBLMS 25; Missoula1979)
85-113;id., 'The SemiticBackground of theNew Testament /fyrioj-Title",
ibid.,115-142.The nowoutdated claimof Bultmannis foundin his Theology
oftheNew Testament (2 vols.;London1952,1955)I, 51.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 471

was. Indeed, scholars today debate to what extent expectation of

some sort of messiah or eschatological savior figure was a
widespread or a relatively isolated phenomenon in Palestinian
Judaismin the firstcenturiesB.C. and A.D. Especially intriguingis
the typology hammered out by John J. Collins in his The Scepter
and the Star("). Among the various messianic typesscatteredin the
intertestamental literature,he discernsthe figuresof a royal Davidic
Messiah, a dyarchyof a priestlyMessiah and a royal Messiah, the
combinationof the roles of teacher,priest,and prophetin one figure,
and an angelic or heavenly savior figurewho bears designationslike
"Son of Man" or "Son of God". This multiplicityof at times
overlapping or meshing messianic types is enlighteningfor those
who see in Jesus' implicitor explicitclaims more thanone messianic
pattern.It seems to me that most of the materialthat we can trace
back to the public ministryof Jesus reflectsthe patternof a miracle-
workingeschatological prophetwearing the mantle of Elijah. Yet in
the triumphalentryinto Jerusalemand the cleansing of the temple
there seems implied a certain royal Davidic claim. It may be that
Jesusreflectsthe syncretistictendenciesof his timein meshingmore
than one messianic role in his own claim and conduct.The material
fromQumran certainlycould lend supportto this view.
Likewise helpful has been the application of the insights of
sociology and cross-culturalanthropologyto the thirdquest(M). All
too oftenin the past, the historicalJesus reconstructedby scholars

(") Collins, The Scepterand theStar,id., "Ideas of Messianismin the

Dead Sea Scrolls",20-41;see also Neusneret al. (eds.),Judaisms and Their
Messiahs; J.H.Charlesworth(ed.), TheMessiah(Minneapolis 1992).
(M)Not surprisingly,thesociologyof theNew Testament has beenused
moresuccessfully intreating
Paulin particularandearlyChristianityingeneral
(includingthefinalformof individualgospels),wherebasic data are more
abundant and less contested;
see,e.g.,A.J.Malherbe,SocialAspectsofEarly
Christianity(BatonRouge,LA - London1977); G. Theissen,Sociologyof
EarlyPalestinianChristianity
(Philadelphia1978);id.,TheGospelsin Context
(Minneapolis1991); B. Holmberg,Paul and Power(Philadelphia 1978); id.,
Sociologyand theNew Testament (Minneapolis1990); H.C. Kee, Christian
OriginsinSociologicalPerspective 1980);B.J.Malina, TheNew
(Philadelphia
Testament World.InsightsfromCulturalAnthropology (Atlanta1981); id.,
ChristianOriginsand Cultural Anthropology(Atlanta1986);W.A.Meeks,The
FirstUrbanChristians (NewHaven- London1983);C. Osiek,WhatAreThey
SayingabouttheSocial Setting oftheNewTestament? (New York- Ramsey,
NJ 1984); R.A. Horsley - J.S. Hanson, Bandits,Prophets,and Messiahs
(Minneapolis1985); J.H.Elliott (ed.),Social-Scientific
Criticism
oftheNew

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
All JohnP. Meier

betrayedits originsin a universityseminarroom whereabstracttopics

from Christian theology were readily placed on the lips of a
supposedly lst-century Jew. The insistence by present-day
practitionersof the sociology of theNew Testamentthatthehistorical
Jesus be rooted in the soil, customs,and worldview of first-century
JewishPalestine with its values of honor and shame, its perception
of limited goods, its ideas about kinship and marriage,its concern
about purityrules,and its complicatedpoliticaland economic systems
is all to the good. One particularaspect of the sociological approach
that has had great impact on academic studies in the United States
is thequestion of the women who followedthehistoricalJesusduring
his public ministry.The great name here is Elisabeth Schüssler
Fiorenza, whose controversialbook In Memory of Her has had
incalculable influenceon Americanacademics, bothmale and female.
In the last decade or two, a veritableflood of articlesand books on
the subject has flowed fromAmerican universitiesand colleges (").
While a good deal of the materialis obviously writtenwith an eye
to present-dayproblems in both church and society,scholars have

Testamentand Its Social World(Semeia35; Decatur,GA 1986);B.J.Malina

- J.H.Neyrey,CallingJesusNames(Sonoma,CA 1988); J.H.Neyrey,An
Ideologyof Revolt(Philadelphia 1988); id., Honorand Shamein theGospel
of Matthew(Louisville1998); R.A. Horsley, The Liberationof Christmas
(New York 1989); id.,Sociologyand theJesusMovement (New York1989);
J. Pilch - B. Malina (eds.), Handbookof BiblicalSocial Values(updated
edition;Peabody,MA 1998).Reliableapplication tothehistorical
Jesusis more
difficult
to comeby,thoughscholarslikeTheissenand Crossanattempt it in
theirreconstructions.
C5) Onlya fewexamplesof treatments of womenin theGospels(some
translated
fromGerman orItalian)canbe mentioned here:E.M. Tetlow,Women
and Ministry in the New Testament (New York - Ramsey,NJ 1980); E.
Moltmann-Wendel,The WomenAroundJesus (New York 1982); B.
WITHERINGTON , III, Womenin theMinistry ofJesus(SNTSMS 51; Cambridge
1984);M.R. D'Angelo, "Abbaand 'Father':Imperial Theologyand theJesus
Traditions",JBL 111 (1992) 611-630;K.E. Corley, PrivateWomen, Public
Meals.Social Conflict in theSynopticTradition (Peabody, MA 1993);C. Ricci,
MaryMagdaleneand ManyOthers.WomenWhoFollowedJesus(Minneapolis
1994); Schüssler Fiorenza,Jesus.Miriam'sChild,Sophia's Prophet;I.R.
Kitzberger,"MaryofBethany andMaryofMagdala- Two FemaleCharacters
in the Johannine PassionNarrative: A Feminist, Narrative-Critical
Reader-
Response",NTS 41 (1995) 564-586;W. Carter, "Getting Marthaout of the
Kitchen:Luke 10:38-42Again",CBQ 58 (1996) 264-280;B.E. Reid,Choosing
theBetterPart? Womenin theGospelof Luke(Collegeville, MN 1996);E.G.
Watson,Wisdom's Daughters:StoriesofWomen aroundJesus(Cleveland1997).

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 473

come to appreciate both the danger of overlookingwhat is said or

implied about women in the gospels and the enrichmentof the
portraitof the historicalJesus thatresultsfromtakingthe presence
and actions of his female followersseriously.

V. Clarificationof the Criteriaof Historicity

A fifthgain of the third quest is the improvementin the
articulationand use of criteriaof historicity.When one looks back
to the work of Bultmann,one is suprised at how intuitivemany of
his judgments about historicitywere. For instance, one is almost
embarrassedto read in his Geschichte his argumentin favor of the
authenticityof Luke 11,20 par., a logion that asserts that Jesus'
exorcisms make present the kingdom of God. Bultmann says that
this saying can claim "the highestdegree of authenticity thatwe are
in a position to accept for a saying of Jesus" because "it is filled
withthe feelingof eschatological power thatthe appearance of Jesus
must have conveyed"(36)-The master skeptic of formcriticismcan
be oddly subjective, not to say romantic, when evaluating the
historicityof individual sayings. It is relativelyrare that Bultmann
argues the pros and cons of historicityat greatlength;usually a short
pronouncement suffices. In the very act of studying Jesus'
authoritativepronouncements,he creates his own.
The post-Bultmannianswere usually more careful. In Ernst
Käsemann, GüntherBornkamm,and theircolleagues, we begin to
see the more explicit articulationof individualcriteriaof historicity.
A somewhat differentapproach, emphasizing more the arguments
thatcould be fashionedfromthe supposed Aramaic substratumand
poetic rhythmof Jesus' sayings, was championed by Joachim
Jeremiasand his followers. Yet it is only in the last few decades
that the definition and proper application of criteria have been
debated at lengthand refined(37).Some criteriathatwere once widely
appealed to have fallen out of favor,while othershave been more
carefully formulated.For example, an appeal to the presence of
Aramaic vocabulary,grammar,and syntaxin reconstructedformsof

(w) R. Bultmann,Die Geschichte Tradition

der synoptischen (FRLANT
29; Göttingen "1970) 174.
see Meier,A MarginalJew,I, 167-
(") For a discussionof thecriteria,
195; an introductorybibliographyon thequestioncan be foundin thenotes
on pp. 185-187.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
474 JohnP. Meier

the sayings of Jesus seems much less probativeof authenticity today

than it did perhaps fiftyyears ago. Afterall, a good numberof the
earliest Christianswere Palestinian Jews whose native tongue was
the same Aramaic Jesus spoke. How do we know thatthe supposed
Aramaic substratumbeneath a particulargospel saying goes back to
Jesus teaching in A.D. 29 ratherthan to one of his Palestinian
Jewish-Christian disciples teaching in A.D. 35? Likewise, the ease
or difficultywith which a gospel saying can be retrovertedinto
Aramaic supplies no sure criterion.Ease of retroversionmight
depend on the degree to which an Aramaic saying - be it from
Jesus or from early Christians- was translatedinto Greek in a
literal,wooden way or in an elegant,creativeway sensitiveto Greek
modes of expression.
In a similar vein, JoachimJeremiassoughtto use the distinctive
rhythmand rhetoricalstructureshe discernedin the sayings of Jesus
as a criterionof authenticity.The problem here is the danger of
circular logic. One must firsthave a fund of sayings that most
probably come from Jesus before one can abstract from them
particularrhythmsand rhetoricdistinctiveof Jesus.And whatif early
disciples of Jesus,not as obtuse as those depicted in Mark's Gospel,
imitatedthe rhetoricalstyle of the Master theyhad listenedto for a
number of years? Presumably Jesus did not have a monopoly on
rhythmic Aramaic and antithetical parallelism in first-century
Palestinian Judaism. Similar objections could be raised against
criteriathatappeal to thePalestinianenvironmentreflectedin Gospel
sayings, since some of Jesus' Jewishdisciples obviously continued
to live in Palestine for decades afterhis crucifixion.
But not all criteriahave been found wantingwhen tested in the
firesof debate. Thanks to scholarlydialogue and gradual corrections,
criticsare able to use some criteriatoday witha bettersense of their
proper purpose and limitations.For example, early on the precise
distinctionbetween the criterionof embarrassment(or contradiction)
on the one hand and the criterionof discontinuity(or dissimilarity)
on the other was hazy at best. Ongoing dialogue has helped refine
these tools. To take one instance: the historicityof the baptism of
Jesus by John the Baptist is based largely on the criterion of
embarrassment,not discontinuity ('"). Both the Baptist and the early

('") On thehistoricity
of Jesus'baptismby John,see Meier,A Marginal
Jew,II, 100-105.On Jesus'practiceof baptizingduringhis publicministry,
see ibid.,120-130.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 475

church practiced a rite of baptism, as apparentlydid Jesus during

his public ministry (John 3,22-4,1; cf. the negation of this
embarrassingtraditionby the Final Redactor of the gospel in 4,2).
Hence the criterionof discontinuitydoes not apply.
However, the gospel sources betrayan increasinguneasiness or
embarrassmentwith the superior,sinless Jesus being baptized with
a baptism of repentancefor the forgivenessof sins by his supposed
inferior,John the Baptist. Thus, Matthew places an explanatory
dialogue beforethe baptismto stressJesus' superiorityto the Baptist
(Matt 3,14-15). Luke removes the Baptist fromthe event by noting
his imprisonmentby Herod Antipas (3,19-20) before mentioning
ever so brieflyJesus' baptism (3,21); no administrator of the rite is
explicitly indicated. The Fourth Evangelist suppresses the entire
event of Jesus' baptism by John,while retainingthe christological
theophany,now narratedafterthe factby the Baptist and completely
detached fromthe originalcontextof Jesus' baptism(John1,32-34).
Indeed, one might see the theophanyitselfas the earliest example
of a Christian attemptto resolve the inherentembarrassmentof
Jesus' being baptized by John:no less an authoritythanGod himself
declares to Jesus that "you [and not the Baptist] are my beloved
Son" (Mark 1,11 parr.).
While embarrassment,as a distinctcriterion,has its own force
and value, it also has, like the othercriteria,its built-inlimitations.
First,relativelylittlematerialin the gospels falls underthiscriterion.
Second, thereis the hermeneuticalproblemthatwhatwe mightjudge
embarrassing today might not seem embarrassing for the first
ChristianJews. To take a famous instance: a prime example of the
criterion of embarrassment has traditionally been the cry of
derelictionfrom the cross (Mark 15,34 par.): "My God, my God,
why have you forsakenme?" Yet the more one appreciates thatthe
Psalms of the suffering just man forman importantunderlyinggrid
for the theology of the primitivePassion Narrative,and the more
one appreciatesthatallusions to such psalms are scatteredthroughout
the Pâssion Narratives of the four gospels, and the more one
appreciates thatPsalm 22 has already been alluded to earlier in the
Marcan and Matthean narrativesof the dividing of Jesus' garments
(Mark 15,24 par.), and the more one appreciates that the opening
words of Psalm 22 would be immediatelyidentifiableto Christian
Jews as a venerable prayerof lamentation,then the more one must
question whetherthe criterionof embarrassmentreally applies here.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
476 JohnP. Meier

Obviously, embarrassmentmay have been a factor when Luke

(23,46), toward the end of the firstcentury,rewrote the Marcan
Passion Narrative for a Gentile audience and substitutedthe much
more comfortingPs 31,5 ("Into your hands I commend my spirit")
for Psalm 22. But this tells us nothingabout the original event. If
anything,it highlightsthe importanceof placing the criterionof
embarrassment within the context of Jewish sensitivities. The
criterionof embarrassmentthereforehas both distinctlimitationsas
well as distinctadvantages.
Needless to say, the same holds true of the criterion of
discontinuity. Discontinuity was a favorite criterion first of
Bultmann, then of Käsemann, and still later of Norman Perrin.
Perrin, in particular,exalted it as the fundamentalcriterionthat
allows us to distill an assured minimumof material coming from
the historicalJesus(39). However, as many critics have pointed out
since, discontinuitycarries with it a number of problems. We are
not so well informedabout eitherJudaismor Christianityin the 1st
century A.D. that we can always affirmwith certaintythat a
particularaction or teaching of Jesus is unique to him. Moreover,
even when we can apply discontinuity, the obsession with what is
unique to Jesus can result in a caricaturecut off fromthe Judaism
thatformedhim and the faithof the disciples thathe formed.Jesus
makes sense as a historicalphenomenonand could functionas an
effectiveteacher in lst-centuryPalestine only if he was very much
connected with his past, present,and immediatefuture.Then, too,
what is unique to Jesus is not always identical with what is central
to his message. Discontinuityargues,forinstance,thatJesus,unlike
contemporaryJudaismand later Christianity, forbadefastingby his
followers.Now, this is a precious nuggetof information;it confirms
Jesus' sense thatthe kingdomof God was somehow already present,
at least partially,in his ministry.Yet no one would want to make
the prohibitionof fasting the central or definingcharacteristicof
Jesus' message and mission.
I would suggestthat,if we are to continueto use the problematic
categoryof "unique" in describingthe historicalJesus,perhaps it is
best to use it not so much of individual sayings or deeds of Jesus
as of the total Gestalt, the total configurationor patternof this Jew

(") See, e.g., N. Perrin,Rediscovering

the Teachingof Jesus(London
1967) 39-43.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 477

who proclaimed the presentyet futurekingdom,who was also an

itinerantprophetand miracle workerin the guise of Elijah, who was
also a teacher and interpreter of the Mosaic Law, who was also a
charismaticleader who called disciples to follow him at greatprice,
who was also a religious personage whose perceived messianic
claims wound up gettinghim crucifiedby the Roman prefect,in the
end, a crucified religious figure who was soon proclaimed by his
followers as risen fromthe dead and Lord of all. It is this total and
astounding configurationof traits and claims that makes for the
uniqueness of Jesusas a historicalfigurewithinlst-centuryJudaism.
Anothercriterionthathas been refinedin recentdecades is the
criterionof multiple attestationof sources and forms.Much more
than in the past, scholars are aware thatmultipleattestationmeans
somethingmore than simplycountingup the numberof occurrences
of a particular saying or story. One must be attentive to the
intersectingof differentsources with differentliteraryforms, all
attestingto the same basic idea or tradition.At times,it is perhaps
a basic motifof Jesus' preachingratherthana particularsaying that
enjoys such multipleattestation.Then, too, what is multiplyattested
may be the absence of a particularmotif in Jesus' preaching and
deeds. For example, the absence of the motifof misogynyis multiply
attestedin the various wisdom sayings of Jesus (as contrastedwith
Jewishwisdom and some later Christianviews), and this in turnis
confirmedby his practice of permittingwomen to follow him, hear
his teaching, and minister to him. But to appreciate fully the
importanceof a clearly defined criterionof multipleattestation,we
should move on to the sixth gain.

VI. Adequate Treatmentof the Miracle Tradition

Indirectly connected with the clearer definition and more

rigorous use of criteriais a sixth gain of the thirdquest: a more
positive treatment of the miracle tradition in the gospels.
Symptomaticof the disdain for the topic among the practitionersof
Religionsgeschichte at the beginning of the 20th century is the
remarkof Wilhelm Bousset in his Kyrios Christos: "We are still able
to see clearly how the earliest traditionof Jesus' life was still
relativelyfree fromthe miraculous'^4").Actually,this stance simply

(") W. Bousset,KyriosChristos(Nashville1970;Germanoriginal1913)
98.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
478 JohnP. Meier

reflectsthe intellectualinheritanceof the Enlightenment.A famous

popular expression of the same mind-setin the United States in the
early 19th century was an edition of the gospels published by
Thomas Jefferson,who convenientlyomitted all the miracles("').
Bultmann,of course, was not so uncritical,thoughlittlemore than
a page of his Jesus and the Word focuses directly on Jesus'
performanceof miracles.If anything,thetreatment of Jesus' miracles
is even more jejune in Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament
(42). The post-Bultmannianswere hardly more sanguine about the
subject. Hans Conzelmann devotes a single paragraph to Jesus'
miracles in his articleon Jesusin the 3d editionof theRGG; Günther
Bornkamm gives the subject some three pages out of 231 pages
(counting according to the pagination in the English translation)in
his book Jesus of Nazareth(43). In contrast, Martin Dibelius
dedicated a shortchapterto miracles in his Jesus book (") ; but one
must admit that,until recently,the post-Bultmannianrefusalto give
Jesus' miracles extensive treatment has prevailed in many
reconstructionsof the historicalJesus.
It is in this neglected area that various participantsin the third
quest have made solid contributions,though at times in a back-
handed way. The great example of the back-handed contribution
early on was the book by Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician i45).
Despite the sensationalisticportrayalof Jesus as a magician secretly
practicing libertine rituals, Smith was right to criticize the
unbalanced Bultmannianpicturefocusingon Jesus as a teacherand
preacher of the word. Such a truncatedpicture, claimed Smith,

(4I)T. Jefferson,TheLifeand MoralsofJesusofNazareth(Washington,

DC 1904,originally 1819-1820);cf. D.W. Adams(ed.), Jefferson's Extracts
fromtheGospels(Princeton 1983).
(42)In Jesusand theWord,somefivepages(123-128)outof 154 pages
(in theEnglishtranslation) deal withbeliefin miraclesin general,and little
morethana pageis devotedto Jesus'performance of miracles.
In Bultmann's
introductory sketchofthehistorical
JesusinhisTheology oftheNewTestament
(1. 3-32),thereis notevena separatesectionon thequestion
ofJesus'miracles.
(41)In J.Reumann'sEnglishtranslation(96 pages)ofConzelmann's RGC
article(Jesus[Philadelphia 1973]),thesingleparagraph on miraclesis found
on p. 55. Bornkamm's JesusofNazarethhas no separatesectionon miracles;
outof a textof 231 pages(in theEnglishtranslation),onlysomethreepages
(130-133)treatdirectly of Jesus'miracles.
C) M. Dibelius, Jesus(SammlungGöschen1130; ed. W.G. Kümmel;
Berlin41966,originally 1939).
O JesustheMagician(San Francisco1978).

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 479

largely ignored the massive presence of the miracle traditionin the

sources, a traditionthatwent back to the historicalJesus and helped
explain his immense - if ultimatelyfatal - popularitywith the
Palestiniancrowds. Crossan took up and popularized Smith's insight,
including (unfortunately, in my view) the identificationof Jesus'
miracles with Hellenistic magicC6). Other scholars, such as E.P.
Sanders and David Aune, confirmedSmith's positive insightabout
the importanceof the miraclesforunderstandingthe historicalJesus,
although they remained chary of Smith's enthusiasticchampioning
of the label "magician" as an overall description of Jesus(47).
Individual monographs, such as Graham Twelftree's Jesus the
Exorcist and Stevan Davies's Jesus the Healer, have continued to
bolster the miracle tradition'sclaim to basic historicityC8).
Still, as I came to treatthe subject in Volume Two of A Marginal
Jew, I felt that the entire question needed a fresh and full airing,
beginning with basic methodological problems(49). As one
approaches this contentioussubject, one mustbe clear fromthe start
about what exactly a historianqua historiancan say about Jesus'
miracles. In my view, the claim thata particularevent is an instance
of God directlyworkinga miracle in human affairsis, of its nature,
a philosophical or theological claim that a historianmay indeed
recordand studybut cannot,given the natureof his or her discipline,
verify.The assertionthatGod has acted directlyin a given situation
to performa miracle is an assertionthatcan be affirmedand known
as true only in the realm of faith.
Therefore,in the quest for the historicalJesus,what a historian

(*') Crossan, TheHistoricalJesus,303-353.

(47)Sanders,Jesusand Judaism,157-173;D.E. Aune,"Magic in Early
ANRWII/23.2,1507-1557.
Christianity",
(") G.H. Twelftree,JesustheExorcist(WUNT 2/54;Tübingen1993);
S.L. Davies, JesustheHealer(New York 1995).On thewiderquestion, see
G. Theissen,TheMiracleStoriesoftheEarlyChristian Tradition
(Philadelphia
1983;Germanoriginal1974);H.C. Kee, Miraclein theEarlyChristian World
(New Haven- London1983); W. Kahl, New Testament MiracleStoriesin
theirReligious-HistoricalSetting(FRLANT 163; Göttingen 1994).
(4*)Meier,A MarginalJew,II, 509-1038.In thesepagesI attempt to treat
thequestionin itsmanydimensions: modernphilosophical problems,ancient
conceptions andparallels,thewaysofcategorizing theGospelmiracles,as well
as the individualnarratives and sayingsof Jesuson the subject.To avoid
multiplying notes,I simplyrefertheinterested readerto therelevant
sections
andsubsections of vol. 2 thattreattheissuesthatwillbe mentionedbrieflyin
whatfollows.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
480 JohnP. Meier

acting withinthe restrictionsof his or her academic discipline can

do is ask a more modest question: whetherthe claim or belief that
Jesus performedmiracles during his public ministrygoes back to
the historical Jesus and his actions or whether instead it is an
example of the faithand missionarypropaganda of the earlychurch
retrojectedonto the historical Jesus. As we have seen, Bousset
claimed that the latterwas the case, and many in the Bultmannian
traditionhave tended partly or wholly to agree. It is this older
religionsgeschichtlichconsensus that the many participantsin the
thirdquest have questioned. Many scholars today would emphasize
thatmiracle working,faithhealing,or exorcismformeda major part
of Jesus' public ministryand contributedin no small degree to the
favorable attentionof the crowds and the unhealthyattentionof the
authorities.
In supportof this emergingtrendin the thirdquest, I maintain
that a numberof the criteriaargue forcefullyin favor of the global
assertionthat,duringhis public ministry, Jesusclaimed to workwhat
we would call miracles and thathis followers- and at times even
his enemies - thoughthe did so.
(a) The single most importantcriterionin this question is the
multiple attestationof sources and forms. Every gospel source
(Mark, Q, the special Matthean source, the special Lucan source,
and John) as well as Josephusin Book 18 of his JewishAntiquities
(Ant. 18.3.3 §63-64) affirmsthat Jesus performeda number of
miracles. This multiple attestationof sources is complementedby
the multipleattestationof literaryforms.For example, in Mark, Q,
and John, both narratives about Jesus and sayings of Jesus (in
addition, at times, to statementsby other people) affirmJesus'
miracle-workingactivity.
(b) Closely intertwinedwith the criterionof multipleattestation
of sources and forms is the criterionof coherence. The various
narrativesabout Jesus and sayings of Jesus from many different
sources do not simplylie side by side like discreteand hermetically
sealed units. In a remarkable,unforcedway they converge, mesh,
and mutually support one another. For example, the various
narrativesof exorcisms in Mark, such as the Gerasene demoniac in
Mark 5,1-20 or the possessed boy in Mark 9,14-29, cry out forsome
deeper explanation. What is the meaning of these exorcisms? How
do they fit into Jesus' overall proclamation and ministry?The
Marcan narratives,taken by themselves,do not say. But the various

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 481

sayings about exorcism in both Mark and Q give the answer in terms
of God's powerfulreign already presentand vanquishingthe power
of Satan over the lives of individual members of God's chosen
people. Likewise, many individual healing narrativesin Mark lack
any wider explanation, which instead is given by the Q logion of
Jesus in Matt 11,5-6 par.: the hoped-forhealing of God's people in
the end-time,prophesied by Isaiah, is now coming to pass. What is
noteworthyhere is how deeds and sayings cut across different
sources and form-criticalcategories to create a meaningfulwhole.
This neat, elegant, and unforced"fit" argues stronglyfor the basic
historicityof the miracle traditionin the gospels.
One could add secondary argumentsfrom the other criteria,
thoughtheirprobativevalue in this case is debatable. For example,
discontinuitydoes point out that accounts of Jesus' miracles were
writtendown by Mark and Q some fortyyears after the events
narrated.By comparison, writtenversions of the miracle traditions
of Apollonius of Tyana, Honi the Circle Drawer, and Hanina ben-
Dosa were composed only centuriesafterthe events recorded.Then,
too, in the early rabbinic sources, Honi and Hanina are represented
as holy men whose powerful prayers were answered with needed
rainfall or the healing of illness. They themselves,though,in the
earliesttraditions,are not representedas miracle-workersin the strict
sense of that term - the sense in which Jesus was considered a
miracle-workerduringhis public ministry.
Minor supportmightalso be sought fromthe strikingfact that,
far from engaging in wild legendary creations of names of
petitioners,beneficiaries,and places, most miracle storiesare bereft
of such concreteinformation.Indeed, a latergospel such as Matthew
sometimesdrops these traitswhen theyexist in Mark. All the more
noteworthy, then,are the veryrarecases where such names do occur:
namely, the raisingof the daughterof Jairas,the healing of the blind
Bartimaeus near Jericho,and the raising of Lazarus at Bethany. I
hasten to add that these minor considerationsare just that,minor.
But they may have a certainconfirmatory force when added to the
arguments from the major criteria of multiple attestation and
coherence.
Nevertheless, there is a logical Achilles' heel in this global
argument,especially in regardto the criterionof multipleattestation.
At firstglance, the multiple attestationis massive and impressive.
But what if we examined the various miracle storiesin the different

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
482 JohnP. Meier

sources one by one and found out thateach one turnedout to be a

creationof the early church?The initiallyimpressiveargumentfrom
multipleattestationwould collapse. Hence, aftermy chapteron the
global argument for historicity,I felt that intellectual honesty
demanded that I proceed to probe every single miracle storyin the
four gospels to see whetherthis objection held. After some four
hundredpages of testing,I came to the conclusion thatat least some
of the miracle stories and sayings went back to the historicalJesus.
The tally includes two or threeexorcisms,various healings of blind,
deaf, and generallysick people, and sayings of Jesusthataffirmthat
he performedexorcisms and healings, material spread over the
Marcan, Q, special Lucan, and Johanninetraditions.Indeed, the
storiesof raisingthe dead foundin Mark, the special Lucan tradition,
and John,plus an assertion about raising the dead in a Q saying
(Matt 11,5-6 par.) make it likely that, during his public ministry,
Jesusclaimed to have raised thedead. So much foran Enlightenment
Jesus. As for the so-called "nature miracles" (a very inadequate
categoryfor various types of miracles), theydid not fare as well in
my testing.In my opinion, only the feeding of the multitudehas a
fair claim to go back to some remarkableevent in Jesus' lifetime.
Still, the upshot of this lengthyinventoryis basically positive.
Not only the global argument but also the probing of all the
individualmiracle storiesand sayingspointto a historicalJesuswho
claimed and was believed by his disciples to have worked miracles
during his public ministry.This conclusion, in turn, has great
significanceforan overall pictureof the historicalJesus.Apartfrom
the Jesus Seminar, most participantsin the thirdquest would agree
that Jesus was, at the very least, an eschatological prophet
proclaiming the imminent coming of God's definitive rule and
kingdom, a rule and kingdom made present even now in Jesus'
authoritativeteaching and mightydeeds of healing. As a numberof
sayings fromdifferent sources (like Mark 3,24-27; Matt 11,5-6 par.;
Luke 11,20 par.) make clear, Jesus' exorcisms and healings are not
just kind deeds to distressed individuals but signs and partial
realizationsof God's final victoryover sin, illness, death,and Satan
as he liberates and rules his people Israel "in the last days".
But this insightbringsus to a furtherpoint. If Jesus presented
himselfas an eschatological prophetwho performeda whole series
of miracles, what Old Testamentfigureor model would naturallybe
conjured up in the minds of lst-centuryPalestinian Jews? In the

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 483

JewishScriptures,only threegreatpropheticfiguresperforma whole

series of miracles: Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. Of these three,Moses
never raises an individual dead person to life. And if we ask which
of these three is expected to returnto Israel in the end-time to
prepare it for God's definitivereign,the answer fromMalachi and
Ben Sira through the intertestamentalwritings to the rabbinic
literatureis: Elijah. I would thereforecontendthatit is not the early
Marcan, Q, or Johanninetraditionsthatfirstthoughtof Jesusin terms
of the miracle-working,eschatological prophetwearing the mantle
of Elijah, thoughthey certainlymay have developed this idea. The
traditionscoming fromthe historicalJesus stronglysuggest thathe
consciously chose to presenthimselfto his fellow Israelites in this
light.How this coheres - or whetherit coheres - with the gospel
traditionsthat portrayJesus as the awaited Davidic Messiah or
present him speaking of himself as the Son of Man is a problem
with which I must still grapple. However one views the relationship
among these competingtraditionsand titles,I thinkthatthecritically
sifteddata of the gospels demand thatthe depictionof Jesus as the
eschatological prophetworkingmiracles à la Elijah must be a key
element in the reconstructionof the historicalJesus - which is to
say, in effect,that the miracle traditionis likewise a key element.
The validation of this insight is a major contributionof the third
quest.

VII. Taking the Jewishnessof Jesus Seriously

Finally,many aspects of the six gains already mentionedin this

article contribute to a seventh gain: an emphasis that was
theoreticallyaffirmedin the past but hardlyever exploited to its full
potential - namely, the Jewishness of Jesus. As we look at the
proliferationof titlesand subtitlesof books like Jesus the Jew,The
Life of a MediterraneanJewishPeasant, or A Marginal Jew,we can
sense a shiftin the very way scholars of any stripefeel they must
- or revitalized-
approach the question today.And yet this new
orientationcreates a new set of problemsforscholars. For example,
what writings are considered most relevant in defining the
Palestinian Judaism that formed Jesus and his earliest followers?
Needless to say, one must firstlook to the Jewish Scriptures.Yet
nothinglike a closed canon existed at thetime,and one mustwonder
what an open and fluctuatingcanon would have meant to Galilean
peasants as distinct from learned élites in Jerusalem.Moreover,

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
484 JohnP. Meier

within the corpus of Jewish Scriptures,one must ask what books

seem to have shaped Jesus' message the most. Certainly,Isaiah and
the Psalms appear to be better candidates than Leviticus and
Chronicles.
At the same time,we cannotthinkof Jesusendlesslyporingover
scrolls like some scribe housed at Qumran or in Jerusalem.Much
of the Jewish Scriptures probably entered his memory and
imaginationthroughpublic readingand preaching.In turn,we must
ask what interpretive, homiletic,or midrashictraditionsmediatedthe
Scriptures to Jesus. Are we to look primarilyat what we call the
Old Testamentpseudepigrapha of an early date, or at some of the
writingsfrom Qumran that do not seem to be distinctiveof that
communitybut ratherreflectwidely disseminatedideas at the time,
or should we look into the future,to the classical Targums or the
early rabbinicliterature,withall the massive problemsof datingthat
involves("')?
On the other hand, to what extent should we presuppose that
Jesushad contactwiththe hellenizedcities of Galilee like Sepphoris,
the subject of much recent archaeological work, publication, and
speculation(")? Are we to imagine thathe imbibed Greek cultureat
the Sepphoris theater? Or should we take seriously the gospel
picture, in which Jesus frequentsJewish towns and villages in
Galilee but is never active in any large hellenized city in Palestine
with the obvious exception of Jerusalem(")? This in turnraises the
question of the validityof the whole approach of some membersof
theJesus Seminar,who have so emphasized thepagan Greco-Roman
background of Jesus' life and preaching and his similarityto a
wanderingCynic philosopherthatsome of the Seminar's opponents
have accused themof engaging in a new de-Judification of Jesus(53).

O See, e.g., B. Chilton,God in Strength. Jesus'Announcement of the

Kingdom(Sheffield 1987).
(") See, e.g.,E.M. Meyerset al., Sepphoris(WinonaLake,IN 1992);R.
M. Nagy et al. (eds.),Sepphorisin Galilee.Crosscurrents
ofCulture(Raleigh,
NC 1996).
(") The precisenatureofJudaism in Galileeat theturnoftheeraremains
a subjectof livelydebate;see, e.g., S. Freyne,GalileefromAlexanderthe
Greatto Hadrian- 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. (Wilmington, DE 1980); id.,
Galilee,Jesusand theGospels(Philadelphia1988); L.L. Levine (ed.), The
Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York - Jerusalem1992); R.A. Horsely,
Archaeology, History,and Societyin GalileefVallevForee.PA 1996V
(") On this,see Powell, Jesusas a Figurein History , 16.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 'ThirdQuest' fortheHistoricalJesus 485

While I would not go that far,I thinkthatthe heavy emphasis

by some scholars on largerpagan Greco-Roman culturalforces has
obscured the specific Palestinian-Jewishcolorationof thisman from
Nazareth. To be sure, Hellenistic culturehad long since penetrated
Palestine(54).But the degree and natureof such penetrationprobably
varied a great deal fromcity to town or fromtown to village, and
various Jews responded variously to the cultural incursion,some
consciously embracing it, others consciously seeking to avoid or
exclude it, and othersunconsciously imbibingit while remainingin
their own eyes faithfulJews(55). The exact extent of Hellenistic
influenceon Jesus himselfis certainlydebatable, and I do not favor
an apologetic stance thatwould seek to exclude it entirely. Various
aspects of Jesus' ministry,
such as themodel of the itinerantreligious
figurerecruitingdisciples who travel with him, may reflectwider
Greco-Roman culturalcurrents.Nevertheless,I thinkthatthe sources
we possess argue stronglythat the preponderanceof religious and
cultural influences molding his life and message were native
Palestinian-Jewish,however this categoryis more preciselydefined.
In brief,apart fromthe Jesus Seminar,most participantsin the third
quest, be they E.P. Sanders, James Charlesworth,or Craig Evans,
have helped make "Jesus the Jew" more than just a fashionable
academic slogan.
After having been militantly historical and non-theological
throughoutthis article,I would like, paradoxically,to conclude with
a theological postscripton the Jewishnessof Jesus. In my opinion,
the thirdquest's emphasis on the Jewishnessof Jesus has willy-nilly
made a lastingcontributionto christology.No one could be stronger
than myself when it comes to insistingon the distinctionbetween
the area of academic historycalled the quest forthe historicalJesus
and the branch of theology(i.e., faithseeking understanding)called
christology.Yet theology,unlike basic Christianfaith,is a cultural
artifactreflectingthe dominant intellectual tendencies of a given

(M)Theclassicworkhere,ofcourse,is M. Hengel,Judaism andHellenism

(Minneapolis1981;Germanoriginal21973).It shouldbe noted,however, that
theprecisedegreeofHellenization in Palestineremainsdebated;see,e.g.,L.H.
Feldman,Jewand Gentilein theAncientWorld(Princeton 1993).
degreesofHellenization
(") The needto distinguish inPalestineaccording
to regionandtimeperiodwas stressed in a lecturedelivered
byDr. S. Freyne
at the Universityof NotreDame, IN, on April20, 1999, as partof an
international
conference on "Hellenismin theLandof Israel".

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
486 JohnP. Meier

time and place. Given the rise of historyas a critical, academic

discipline in the West in the 19thcentury,any christologythatseeks
to be intellectuallyand academically respectable in a European-
NorthAmerican contextmust ask how it should incorporateinsights
fromthe thirdquest into its theological project.
I would suggest thatone definitegain thatmust be incorporated
is the last one I have listed, the true and thoroughJewishnessof
Jesus. From the Council of Chalcedon onwards, the touchstoneof
genuine Christianfaithin Christhas been the formula"trulydivine
and trulyhuman"(56).Yet it is not too much of an exaggerationto
say that, in defense of the "trulydivine," the "trulyhuman" has
sometimes been obscured or swallowed up in a sort of crypto-
monophysitism.What the third quest can supply as an aid to
regaining the Chalcedonian balance is the firmbasso continuo of
"truly Jewish" as the concrete, historical expression and
underpinning of the theological "truly human". To speak in
Johannineterms: when the Word became flesh, the Word did not
simply take on an all-purpose, generic, one-size-fits-allhuman
nature.Such a view would not take seriouslythe radical historicity
of both human existence and divine revelation.The Word became
truly flesh insofar as the Word became truly Jewish. No true
Jewishness,no truehumanity.Hence, contraryto the charge thatthe
high christology of orthodox Christianitynecessarily leads to a
coverttheological anti-Semitism,I thinkthata properunderstanding
of the Chalcedonian formula, illuminated by the third quest,
necessarily leads to a ringingaffirmationof the Jewishnessof the
flesh the Word assumed. Even if the thirdquest has no otherimpact
on contemporarychristology,the emphatic reaffirmationof the
Jewishness of Jesus will make the whole enterpriseworthwhile.
Something lasting will have been gained.

722 Flanner Hall JohnP. Meier

Universityof Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556

(*) The definition

of Chalcedon(A.D. 451) can be conveniently
foundin
Denziger-Schönmetzer, EnchiridionSymbolorum (Freiburg"1963) 108 at
#301:Theonalêthõskai anthrõpon alêthõs.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Third Quest' fortheHistoricalJesus 487

SUMMARY

Despitethequestionable methodand positions of theJesusSeminar, thethird

quest forthe historical Jesushas resultedin seven notable as
gains compared
withtheold quests.(1) The thirdquesthas an ecumenicaland international
character.(2) It clarifiesthequestionofreliablesources.(3) It presentsa more
accuratepictureof first-century Judaism.(4) It employsnew insightsfrom
archaeology, philology, andsociology.(5) It clarifies
theapplicationofcriteria
of historicity.(6) It givesproperattentionto themiracletradition.(7) It takes
theJewishness of Jesuswithutterseriousness.

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.107 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions