I’m still a fan of the modern academic / historical approach to Jesus of Nazareth. I’ve sampled a bit of the various schools of modern-day thought on the life of Jesus, and I’ve come down on the side of the eschatological / apocalyptic approach. Under this paradigm, Jesus was trying to save Israel from Roman subjugation by preparing the people for direct intervention by God. Jesus did not have in mind some future heavenly realm; he felt that God was coming down to earth very soon. God would land in Jerusalem, and would orchestrate a series of marvelous events that would push the Romans out, cast out the bad Jews, and leave the good ones to live very long lives in a land of peace and righteousness. Again, not in some heavenly realm, but right on the dusty soil of Palestine.
One of the big controversies among the professors is whether Jesus saw himself as having a direct role in the big event and the administration of the “Kingdom of God”, once in place. A number of Historical Jesus researchers conclude that Jesus did NOT claim such a role, what could be termed a “messiah” role, despite various notes in the New Testament saying that he did. A handful of others come to the opposite conclusion, saying that the “son of man” and “messiah” lines and stories (e.g., entering Jerusalem riding a donkey, hearkening back to Hebrew Scripture stories of kings riding on donkeys) were original, if somewhat trumped up over the years by the Christian biblical redactors. But most seem afraid that if they accept this notion, they will be helping the “snake handlers”, those academicians who support a Christian proselytizing agenda.
I come down on the side of the snake handlers. But not because » continue reading …


