It would be beneficial, before we begin this lengthy series, to define some of the basic concepts that will be used frequently.
The Historical Jesus: The "historical" Jesus is not the same as the Jesus who actually lived, walked and talked in Galilee two thousand years ago. By "historical" Jesus, scholars mean the Jesus that can be reconstructed by a careful analysis of the evidence whether it is historical, archaeological, or literary evidence. The historical Jesus is a portrait of the real Jesus (see below). It is the task of the historian, and thus our task as well, to analyze the evidence available to us and use it to paint a portrait of what the real Jesus might have said, thought, and believed.
The Real Jesus: This is the Jesus who actually lived, walked and talked in Galilee two thousand years ago. The real Jesus is a more rich concept than the historical Jesus; it refers to the totality of his person. The real Jesus cannot be known through historical critical research, though a reasonable portrait is possible. We simply do not have the amount of source material or evidence that would be necessary to know such a complex entity. I want to be abundantly clear at this point: I am not saying that the real Jesus cannot be known at all. I am saying that he cannot be known through the tools and methods of historical criticism. As Christians we can know the real Jesus through our experience of his presence and power in our lives by the Holy Spirit. However, knowing the real Jesus is not the concern of this series (that would be the concern in a series on christology, not here).
The Synoptic Gospels: The word "synoptic" comes from the Greek meaning "seen together." It refers to the gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke together, since they contain a lot of the same material and are roughly governed by the same order of events (though there are important differences). Because of their seemingly historical character, and because they are generally dated as the earliest canonical gospels (dates usually range between 60-80 C.E.), the synoptic gospels are typically the only canonical gospels to be used in historical Jesus studies. The gospel of John is generally excluded, as it is thought to be less "historical" and more "theological" in character (though there are other scholars to are beginning to argue for the historicity of John's gospel).
The Synoptic Problem: Because Matthew, Mark, and Luke share a lot of the same material about Jesus, it is commonly thought that there exists a kind of literary dependence between them. The synoptic problem, put simply, is the puzzling fact that the each of the synoptics contain a lot of material that can be found in another (even with the same Greek words and word order) and yet they each possess material that is unique to their own composition. The most common solution is that Mark was written first and was later copied by both Matthew and Luke.
Q Source: The hypothetical document used by some New Testament scholars to explain why Luke and Matthew share narrative and discourse material in their gospels that is not found in Mark. Q scholars suggest that both Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and another source called Q (from the German Quella meaning "source").
Apocryphal Gospels: Gospels which are not included in our New Testament canon. The two most prominent apocryphal gospels, which will be relevant for our discussion, are the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter, both of which are thought to have been composed in the middle of the second century C.E.
Criteria of Historicity: Criteria used by New Testament historians to decide which sayings and events are historical and which ones are not. None of these criteria are sufficient by themselves. They must be used alongside the other criteria as well. Indeed, as we shall see later, there are problems with these criteria, but, because they have been used so widely I must include them here.There are basically 5 criteria for historicity, which I will list below (here I am following Meier's outline. See Meier, 1991, pgs. 168-177).
1. The Criterion of Embarrassment: The criterion of embarrassment, put simply, focuses on actions or sayings of Jesus which would have been embarrassing for the early church to record. Examples would include Peter's denial, and the superior Jesus' baptism by the inferior John the Baptist.
2. The Criterion of Discontinuity (or double dissimilarity): This criterion is meant to guard against sayings or actions of Jesus which could have been made up by early Christians or antecedent Judaism. This would include Jesus' statement about Oaths and his statement about Eunuchs and the kingdom of God, neither of which can be found in antecedent Judaism or early Christianity. They are thus more likely to be historical.
3. The Criterion of Multiple Attestation: This criterion focuses on those sayings and deeds of Jesus which are found in more than on independent source (Q, John, Mark, Paul, etc.) or in more than one literary genre. This would include Jesus' statements on divorce and his discourse at the last supper.
4. The Criterion of Coherence: This criterion is meant to be used primarily in conjunction with the other criteria. Once we have a firm grasp on some of Jesus' words and deeds, and have constructed an historical context into which they can fit, any other sayings or actions of Jesus that fit into this context can be judged as being more historically probable.
5. The Criterion of Rejection and Execution: No reputable New Testament historian will deny that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. It is an historical truism. This criterion basically states that any reconstruction of the historical Jesus must be able to explain sufficiently why Jesus was crucified. In other words, if your Jesus is the kind of guy who did not like to cause trouble or offend people with his words and deeds, then your Jesus is not historical, because he is not crucifiable.
I hope this overview helps clarify some of the terminology that I will be using in the future. I know that this post was long, but I would rather get a glossary of terms out of the way this early rather than define them as we go. Thank you for continuing on with me.
