The human body has its origin in the act of creation by God depicted in Gen. 2:7, so that it comes under the heading of the “very good” evaluation at the close of the six days of creation (1:31). In neither the OT nor the NT is the body viewed as evil, in contrast to the ancient Greek view that saw the human body as a prison of the soul and viewed death as a release from this bondage. This contributes to the Bible’s positive view of human sexuality when properly expressed in a committed marriage relationship, one notable example being the mutual admiration of the man and the woman who are deeply in love in Song of Songs, where we find a head-to-toe description of the man’s physique (5:10–16) and a corresponding description of the woman’s body (7:1–8).

Old Testament. In the OT, death is regularly described as a returning of the body to the dust/ground from which it was made (e.g., Gen. 3:19; Ps. 90:3). The dignity of the human body is signaled by the importance of proper burial (Deut. 21:22–23), which is a cultic rather than a health regulation in the OT. The outrage committed by the Philistines on the bodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sam. 31), the deliberate desecration of tombs (2 Kings 23:16; Amos 2:1), and leaving an enemy unburied are ways of expressing utter contempt. The ensuring of proper burial (even of strangers) becomes a mark of Jewish piety, as exemplified in Tob. 2:1–10; 12:11–15.

The Hebrew word nepesh (often translated “soul”) can be used of a dead body (e.g., Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; 19:13; Hag. 2:13), though this word has a wide range of meaning (sometimes it means “throat”). This usage is not to be taken as signifying that the soul/body distinction is not recognized. On the contrary, in OT teaching “body” (whatever the Hebrew word used) always refers to the physical body, not to the whole human person that is bipartite (body/soul) within an overall psychophysical unity. The reference in Mic. 6:7 (NIV: “the fruit of my body”) is really to the “womb” (cf. Deut. 28:4), and the Hebrew word in question, beten, can refer to a male body insofar as it is involved in procreation (Ps. 132:11).

New Testament. Hebrews insists on the real humanity of Jesus (2:14–18), and the Gospels portray him as having the normal physical requirements of drink, food, and sleep (Mark 4:38; John 4:7–8). To deny that Jesus Christ came “in the flesh” strikes at the heart of the gospel and is the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:2–3). For atonement to take place, it was required that Jesus offer himself body and soul to God through death (Heb. 10:5–10, 20). At the Last Supper, when Jesus said, “This is my body” (Matt. 26:26), his meaning was that the bread represented his body, which would be offered on the cross as the sacrifice that makes possible the inauguration of the new covenant (cf. Exod. 24:1–8).

The bodily resurrection of Jesus is evidenced by the empty tomb (Mark 16:4–6) and the appearance of the risen Christ to his followers (e.g., Luke 24:36–43; see the list of witnesses in 1 Cor. 15:5–8). This is a fundamental point of Christian doctrine and gospel proclamation, providing assurance to believers that they too will be physically raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:42–52), a belief found already in the OT (Dan. 12:2). Salvation in the Bible embraces the redemption of the body and the renewal of the physical creation. At the time of Christ’s return, believers will be raised from their graves and meet their returning Lord (1 Thess. 4:13–18).

In what is acknowledged by all to be a difficult passage (2 Cor. 5:1–9), Paul appears to envisage that at the point of death he will not become a disembodied soul but instead will “be clothed with [his] heavenly dwelling” (5:4). The expression “away from the body” (5:8) is not to be taken as an indication of bodiless existence, but rather is explained by “at home with the Lord” and refers to the believer’s state upon leaving this earthly life. The nature of the “spiritual body” in 1 Cor. 15:35–49 is only hinted at by means of analogies (e.g., the seed) or contrasts (between the “perishable” and the “imperishable”), but its physicality (though gloriously transformed) is plain. Perhaps our clearest indication is provided by what we are told of the resurrection body of Jesus, which could pass through grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:5–7), appear and disappear in a closed room (Luke 24:31, 36), and ingest food and be touched (Luke 24:37–43).

Paul made use the “body” analogy for the character of the church as the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12–26), viewing it as an organism consisting of different, mutually dependent members or organs. This teaching was designed to rebuke and correct the self-glorifying and self-serving use and abuse of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church. So too, the reality of the Christian community as a “body” (1 Cor. 10:17; 11:29) showed that their uncaring attitude toward each other manifested at their suppers was totally inappropriate. In the same letter Paul says that the believer’s “body” is united to Christ, making sexual immorality a thing to be shunned (6:12–20). Believers are to glorify God in their bodies. The analogy of the body is used a little differently in Ephesians (1:23; 2:16) and Colossians (1:18, 24), where its point is that Christ is the “head” of the body (the church), which therefore must submit to his direction and rule. Believers are to pre­sent their “bodies” as a living sacrifice, serving the master who redeemed them (Rom. 12:1). The verse that follows gives the other side to the equation: serving God with the mind (12:2). Body and mind together make up the complete human being, who is a psychosomatic unity. See also Gestures.

The northern region of Israel. The name can mean “circle,” “region,” or “district.” Determining the region’s precise boundaries is difficult, but in Jesus’ time it appears to have encompassed an area of about forty-five miles north to south and twenty-five miles east to west, with the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee forming the eastern border. Josephus divides the region into Upper and Lower Galilee. Upper Galilee contains elevations of up to about four thousand feet and is comprised mostly of rugged mountains, while Lower Galilee reaches a maximum height of about two thousand feet and is characterized by numerous fertile valleys. Lower Galilee was the site of most of Jesus’ ministry.

Galilee appears several times in the OT (e.g., Josh. 20:7; 1 Kings 9:11; 1 Chron. 6:76). It was part of the land given to the twelve tribes (Josh. 19). Since Galilee was distant from Jerusalem, which played the most prominent part in Jewish history, much of its history is not mentioned in the OT. Many of the references that do occur are military references, such as Joshua’s defeat of the kings at the waters of Merom (Josh. 11:1–9) and the Assyrian removal of the northern kingdom of Israel (Isa. 9:1). However, its great beauty, particularly of mountains such as Carmel, Hermon, and Lebanon, was the source of numerous images and metaphors in the poetic and prophetic literature (e.g., Ps. 133:3; Isa. 33:9; 35:2; Jer. 46:18).

Galilee figures more prominently in the NT. Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and conducted much of his early ministry there. Luke specifically identifies Galilee as the place where Jesus’ ministry began before spreading to Judea (Luke 23:5; Acts 10:37). Galilee is also portrayed as the place where Jesus will reunite with his disciples following the resurrection (Mark 16:7) and where he gives them the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16–20).

The name “James” is a form of the name “Jacob” (Heb. Ya’aqob; Gk. Iakōbos), which was very popular in the first century. In the NT there are five individuals named “James.”

(1) James the son of Zebedee and the older brother of John. He was martyred by Herod Agrippa I in AD 40 (Mark 1:19; 3:17; Acts 12:2). Eusebius records a tradition from Clement of Alexandria that the individual who brought James before Herod was so moved by James’s testimony that he converted on the spot and was martyred along with James (Hist. eccl. 2.9).

(2) James the son of Alphaeus we know very little about other than that he is consistently listed among the disciples (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).

(3) James “the younger” (Mark 15:40), whose mother, named “Mary,” appears in Mark 16:1 just as the “mother of James.” In church tradition, he is sometimes identified with James the son of Alphaeus.

(4) James the father of Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) is mentioned only to distinguish this Judas from Judas Iscariot.

(5) James the brother of Jesus was an early leader of the Jerusalem church (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13–31; 21:18; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12; Jude 1). A number of Jesus’ family members became prominent leaders in the early Christian movement in Palestine, James being the most prominent.

Although he was not one of the twelve disciples and likely did not accept Jesus as the Messiah until after the resurrection (cf. John 7:5; Acts 1:14), James quickly emerged as a key leader in the Jerusalem church, where he served until his death in AD 62. Because the Jerusalem church was the parent of all churches and thus granted a central authority by early Christians, James played an important role by giving leadership and direction to the movement. According to Paul’s account, Jesus singled James out following the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), and in Luke’s narrative James is described as the leader of the church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18)—a depiction confirmed by Paul’s description of James as one of the three “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). During Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, James’s standing was such that Paul felt it necessary to name him along with Peter as having seen him there (Gal. 1:19).

From the influential position of leadership in the Jerusalem church, James wrote two letters that shaped the contours of early Christian life. According to Luke, after the pivotal meeting and decision regarding circumcision in Acts 15, James, along with the “apostles and elders” (Acts 15:23), wrote to the Gentile believers to inform them that they would not have to follow the practice of circumcision in order to become followers of Jesus Christ. During the negotiations James provided a key exegetical argument from the OT (Amos 9:11–12 and Jer. 12:15, recorded in Acts 15:16–17) advocating the inclusion of Gentiles in the church. In the Letter of James, he wrote from this position of central authority in Jerusalem to Jewish Christians throughout the Diaspora. Here James again demonstrates his exceptional abilities as an interpreter of the OT regarding Jewish legal (Lev. 19) and wisdom (Prov. 3:34) traditions through the lens of Christ in order to call his readers to wholehearted living.

Memories of James were preserved well into the second century because he was viewed as the model of a pious person. Eusebius cites Hegesippus, a second-century Jewish believer from Jerusalem, who recounts how James was so often found kneeling in prayer for the people that his knees grew hard like a camel’s, and that “because of his unsurpassable righteousness” he was called “the Just” (Hist. eccl. 2.23.4–7). The same passage records that because of his confession of Christ before the Jews, James was thrown from the parapet of the temple, stoned, and finally killed by a blow from a fuller’s club (Hist. eccl. 2.23.16–18). In addition to these traditions there is a substantial body of apocryphal Christian writings composed in the name of James by individuals during the second and third centuries. These, mainly gnostic, texts promote an almost legendary man of piety and ascetic lifestyle (e.g., First Apocalypse of James, Second Apocalypse of James, Apocryphon of James).

Laying hands on someone/something has two literal uses and two with symbolic significance. (1) Literally, to take something (e.g., Exod. 22:8–11; Esther 9:10–16; Matt. 26:51; Luke 9:62) or someone—that is, to make an arrest (e.g., Neh. 13:21; Matt. 26:50; Mark 14:46; Luke 20:19; 21:12; 22:53; John 7:30, 44; Acts 4:3; 5:18; 12:1; 21:27). (2) Literally, to lay hands on persons (or things) so as to hurt or destroy them (e.g., Gen. 22:12; 37:22; 1 Sam. 22:17; 24:5–13; 26:9–23; Job 1:12; 9:33; Isa. 11:14; Jer. 15:6; Ezek. 39:21). (3) Laying a hand over one’s mouth as a symbolic gesture of amazement (Mic. 7:16) or humility (Job 40:4). (4) A gesture to symbolize the transfer of something from one person to another. Transfer symbolism applications include the transfer of representative identity in sacrificing (e.g., Exod. 29:10–19; Lev. 1:4; 16:21; Num. 8:10–12; 2 Chron. 29:23–24), of authority in commissioning (ordination) (e.g., Num. 27:18–23; Deut. 34:9; Acts 6:6; 13:3), of blessing (e.g., Gen. 48:13–20; Matt. 19:13–15), of life and health (e.g., Matt. 8:3, 15; 9:18, 25, 29; 20:34; Mark 6:5; 7:32–33; 8:22–26; 16:18; Luke 4:40; 7:14; 13:13; 22:51; Acts 8:17; 9:12, 17; 28:8), and of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifting (Acts 8:17–19; 9:17; 19:6; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6).

Three additional things should be noted about this transfer symbolism. First, the laying on of hands is symbolic rather than purely causative. This is evidenced when Jesus and the apostles credit faith, and not mere touch, for healings (e.g., Matt. 9:22, 29–30; Luke 17:19; Acts 3:12–16; 14:9; cf. Matt. 13:58), when healings occur from a distance (e.g., Matt. 8:5–13; 15:21–28; John 4:46–54) and/or with no apparent touch involved (e.g., Matt. 8:28–34; 9:1–8, 32–33; 12:22; 17:14–21; Mark 1:23–28; Luke 17:11–19; John 5:1–9; 11:1–44; Acts 5:15; 9:32–35, 40–41; 14:8–10; 16:18), when the Holy Spirit comes upon people without touch (e.g., Acts 10:44–45), and when Peter strongly rebukes Simon Magus for assuming that the Holy Spirit is dispensed by mere touch (Acts 8:17–24).

Second, the early church used the laying on of hands for commissioning church workers (Acts 6:6), missionaries (Acts 13:3), and elders (Acts 14:23 [the Greek word used for “appointing,” cheirotoneō, is derived from the words for “extend,” teinō, and “hand,” cheir; cf. 2 Cor. 8:19). Since the act was conducted by apostles (Acts 6:6), by prophets and teachers (Acts 13:1–3), by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:23; 2 Tim. 1:6), and by church elders (1 Tim. 4:14), we may conclude that the early church had no established hierarchy for ordination.

Third, the NT has some guidelines for commissioning Christian workers (cf. Heb. 6:2). Church leaders have weighty responsibilities (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:1–13; 5:17; Titus 1:5–9; 1 Pet. 5:1–4), so it is not surprising that a church elder/overseer must not be a recent convert (1 Tim. 3:6) or hastily ordained (1 Tim. 5:22), and that a deacon must first be tested (1 Tim. 3:10).

(1) The most important Mary of the NT is the mother of Jesus, who becomes pregnant through the Holy Spirit while still a virgin. In contrast with Matthew’s birth narrative, where the emphasis falls on Joseph, Luke’s focuses on Mary. Luke’s Gospel introduces Mary as the one to whom God sends the angel Gabriel (1:26–27). Gabriel announces that Mary will be the mother of the Messiah from David’s line, who will reign over the house of Jacob and have a unique father-son relationship with God. Mary responds in humble obedience as “the Lord’s servant” (1:29–38). When she visits her relative Elizabeth, Mary breaks forth in the Magnificat, a song praising God for caring for the humble, humbling the mighty, and remembering his covenant with Abraham (1:46–55).

After the birth of Jesus and the visit from the shepherds, Mary “treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart” (2:19). An old man, Simeon, announces that although Jesus will be a light of revelation for the Gentiles and Israel’s glory, Mary will be deeply grieved, and her soul will be pierced by a sword (2:35). This is the first hint in Luke’s Gospel that Mary’s child, the Messiah, will suffer. In the only episode from Jesus’ childhood in the Gospel, Mary scolds her son for remaining in the temple while his family traveled back to Galilee (2:48). In Luke’s Gospel, Mary is a humble and obedient woman who reflects deeply about her experiences surrounding the birth of Jesus and cares greatly for him as well. Beyond the birth narratives, Mary does not figure as a prominent character in the Gospels. In John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks sternly to his mother when she wants him to perform a miracle before his “hour has . . . come” (2:4); however, at the crucifixion, Mary is present, and Jesus places her into the care of the Beloved Disciple (19:25–27). Later traditions about Mary’s immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, sinlessness, and roles as co-mediator of salvation and answerer of prayer are not taught in the Bible.

(2) Another Mary mentioned in the Gospels is the sister of Martha, who is praised by Jesus for not busying herself with domestic duties as Martha does, but rather sits at the feet of Jesus, “listening to what he said” (Luke 10:39–40). This same Mary is mentioned on another occasion as the one “who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair” (John 11:1–2; cf. 12:1–8). The Synoptic Gospels record a similar event in which a woman, left unnamed, anoints either the feet of Jesus (Luke 7:36–50) or his head (Matt. 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9). With the exception of Luke, it seems as though John, Matthew, and Mark are recording the same event. In each of these three, Jesus associates the anointing with the preparation of his body for burial.

(3) Mary Magdalene makes a brief appearance during the ministry of Jesus, and Luke describes her as one who had been cured of seven demons (Luke 8:2). It is quite unlikely that she is the “sinful” woman of the preceding narrative (7:37–50), an association that has given rise to the erroneous belief that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. She is the first to witness the empty tomb (John 20:1). Likewise, she is the first to see the resurrected Lord and is commanded to go and tell the disciples about his resurrection (John 20:11–18; cf. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1–6; Luke 24:1–10). She is even present for the crucifixion (Matt. 27:56) and the burial of Jesus’ body (Matt. 27:61).

(4) Mary the mother of James and Joses (Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40) is one of two other Marys who, like Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus, appear at the crucifixion. She may be the same person as #5.

(5) Mary the wife of Clopas (John 19:25) is the second of the two other Marys who, like Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus, appear at the crucifixion. She may be the same person as #4.

(6) Another Mary is the mother of John Mark, to whose house Peter comes after he escapes from prison (Acts 12:12).

(7) In Rom. 16:6, Paul sends greetings to Mary, who “worked very hard” for the church in Rome.

Poisons in the OT generally derived from reptiles, insects, or other animals and caused inflammation, fever, and frequently death. Various poisonous snakes were found in Palestine (Num. 21:6; Deut. 8:15; 32:24, 33; Job 20:14, 16; Pss. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; Mark 16:18; cf. Acts 28:1–6 [on Malta]). Several plants were known to be poisonous, though few are mentioned in Scripture (Deut. 29:18; Hos. 10:4). Job 6:4 refers to the use of poison-tipped arrows to increase potency of the weapon, probably used both in hunting and combat.

Poisons in the OT generally derived from reptiles, insects, or other animals and caused inflammation, fever, and frequently death. Various poisonous snakes were found in Palestine (Num. 21:6; Deut. 8:15; 32:24, 33; Job 20:14, 16; Pss. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; Mark 16:18; cf. Acts 28:1–6 [on Malta]). Several plants were known to be poisonous, though few are mentioned in Scripture (Deut. 29:18; Hos. 10:4). Job 6:4 refers to the use of poison-tipped arrows to increase potency of the weapon, probably used both in hunting and combat.

Poisons in the OT generally derived from reptiles, insects, or other animals and caused inflammation, fever, and frequently death. Various poisonous snakes were found in Palestine (Num. 21:6; Deut. 8:15; 32:24, 33; Job 20:14, 16; Pss. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; Mark 16:18; cf. Acts 28:1–6 [on Malta]). Several plants were known to be poisonous, though few are mentioned in Scripture (Deut. 29:18; Hos. 10:4). Job 6:4 refers to the use of poison-tipped arrows to increase potency of the weapon, probably used both in hunting and combat.

In the Bible, words for “spice” include the Hebrew bosem (NIV: “spice, perfume, fragrance”) and sam (NIV: “fragrant incense, fragrant spice”) and the Greek arōma and amōmon (NIV: “spice”). Aromatic vegetable products were used either to season food or as perfuming agents, and sometimes as both. The Greek term amōmon occurs only in Rev. 18:13, in this context probably referring to a spice from India. The term arōma occurs only in Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56; 24:1; John 19:40, where it is not technically part of an embalming process, since it does not stop decomposition, but rather is intended to offset the odor of death. If a funeral pyre is not intended in 2 Chron. 16:14, the spices there serve this same function. The Hebrew term sam occurs most frequently in Exodus in connection with the incense to be burned before God (Exod. 25:6; 30:7, 34; 31:11; 35:8, 15, 28; 37:29; 39:38; 40:27; cf. Lev. 4:7; 16:12; Num. 4:16; 2 Chron. 13:11). The term bosem occurs more widely throughout the OT with reference to both fragrances (e.g., Isa. 3:24) and spices (e.g., 1 Kings 10:10) and can modify the name of specific spices, as in Exod. 30:23: “cinnamon spice” (NIV: “fragrant cinnamon”) and “cane spice” (NIV: “fragrant calamus”).

Spices were in high demand, making food and living more enjoyable, especially for the wealthy. They were used in food (implicit in Ezek. 24:10) and drink (Song 8:2). The spice trade forged the earliest routes from northern India to Sumer, Akkad, and Egypt (cf. Gen. 37:25). Trade led to cultural exchange and, in the time of Solomon, to national wealth from tolls collected on such shipments. Ezekiel 27:22 and Rev. 18:13 show the value associated with this trade, and 2 Kings 20:13 places spices among King Hezekiah’s “treasures.” The sensual luxury of spices could be erotic (e.g., Esther 2:12; Song 5:1; 6:2; 8:14); indeed, Song of Songs, though short, uses the word bosem more than any other book in the OT. Some spices, such as frankincense, were important to worship rituals in ancient Israel, being used in offerings (Lev. 24:7) and in the anointing oil and incense (Exod. 25:6; 30:22–38). Producing the right mixtures required skilled individuals (Exod. 30:25; 1 Chron. 9:29–30).

The list below includes a number of spices named in the Bible.

Aloe (Heb. ’ahalim, ’ahalot; Gk. aloē). In the OT this probably refers to Aquilaria agallocha, a spice derived from the eaglewood tree and used to perfume cloth (Ps. 45:8; Prov. 7:17; Song 4:14). In the NT, it refers to the juice from Aloe vera leaves (John 19:39).

Balm (Heb. tsori). Apparently native to Gilead, the plant is now unknown. The earliest association is with stacte (Commiphora gilea-densis), which does not currently grow in Gilead. Noted for its healing benefit to wounds (Jer. 8:22; 46:11; 51:8), balm was exported (Gen. 37:25; 43:11; Ezek. 27:17).

Calamus (Heb. qaneh). Also known as sweet flag (Acorus calamus), calamus was used for its aroma and as a tonic and stimulant (Song 4:14; Isa. 43:24; Jer. 6:20; Ezek. 27:19).

Caraway (Heb. qetsakh). The seeds of this plant (Nigella sativa) were used as a condiment and to ease intestinal gas. A light beating freed the seeds without crushing them (Isa. 28:25, 27).

Cassia (Heb. qiddah, qetsi’ah). These Hebrew terms probably refer to an aromatic similar to cinnamon, like the bark of the Cinnamomum aromaticum, or more likely the Cinnamomum iners of Arabia and Ethiopia (Exod. 30:24; Ps. 45:8; Ezek. 27:19).

Cinnamon (Heb. qinnamon; Gk. kinna-mōmon). A local variety of cinnamon, or “true cinnamon” (Cinnamomum zeylanicum) imported from Sri Lanka (Exod. 30:23; Prov. 7:17; Song 4:14; Rev. 18:13). Loosely related may be the “spice” (Gk. amōmon) of Rev. 18:13; the word often appears alongside “cardamom” in extrabiblical writings; it perhaps indicates black cardamom.

Coriander (Heb. gad). Also known as cilantro, this has long been used as a food seasoning; it also served as a medicine to aid digestion and sleep (Exod. 16:31; Num. 11:7).

Cumin (Heb. kammon; Gk. kyminon). Cuminum cyminum, which is similar to caraway in taste and appearance, has long been cultivated in Palestine as a seasoning. Like caraway, it is threshed to keep the seeds intact (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23).

Dill (Gk. anēthon). Used for seasoning, this herb (Anethum graveolens) was among those tithed by the Pharisees (Matt. 23:23).

Frankincense (Heb. lebonah; Gk. libanos). This fragrant resin from trees of the genus Bos-wellia was used in worship (Exod. 30:34; Lev. 24:7) and was among the gifts brought to Jesus at his birth (Matt. 2:11).

Gum resin (Heb. natap). Also known as stacte, this ingredient of the holy incense (Exod. 30:34) was derived from either Commiphora gileadensis (balm of Gilead) or Styrax officinale.

Mint (Gk. hēdyosmon). Most likely Mentha longifolia, it was tithed by the Pharisees (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrrh (Heb. mor, lot; Gk. smyrna, cf. myron). A resin exuded from incisions in the branches of trees such as Commiphora myrrha and Commiphora kataf and useful for its fragrance and antiseptic properties (Exod. 30:23; Ps. 45:8; Prov. 7:17; Song 1:13; 3:6; Esther 2:12). Hebrew lot (Gen. 37:25; 43:11) probably refers to labdanum.

Nard (Heb. nerd; Gr. nardos). In the OT (Song 1:12; 4:13–14), camel grass (Cymbopogon schoenanthus) from northern Africa and Arabia probably is in view, but in the NT (Mark 14:3; John 12:3), Nardostachys jatamansi from Nepal is suggested. Nard was used as an ointment or perfume.

Rue (Gk. pēganon). Mentioned only in Luke 11:42, Ruta chalepensis was cultivated to flavor food and was thought to have medicinal value.

Saffron (Heb. karkom). Produced from the flowers of the Crocus sativus, native to Greece and Asia Minor, this expensive spice was used not only for culinary purposes but also as an antispasmodic and emmenagogue (Song 4:14).

A mineral cluster or rock. Although the terms “rock” and “stone” are occasionally used synonymously, “rock” usually refers to a large geological formation such as a cliff, cave, outcropping, or bedrock, while “stone” is preferred when the rock is small enough to be fashioned or handled by human beings. “Stone” can also function as an adjective, referring to a material made of stone, or as a verb, referring to the casting of stones.

Rocks and stones were found naturally on the ground (Job 8:17; Ps. 91:12; Isa. 5:2; Mark 5:5; Luke 3:8). They could be heaped or piled up as a sign of disgrace (Josh. 7:26; 8:29; 2 Sam. 18:17), as a marker or memorial (Gen. 31:46–50), or as an altar (Exod. 20:25). A single rock or stone could also be used as a place marker (Gen. 28:22; 35:14, 20; 1 Sam. 7:12), especially standing stones (Deut. 27:2–8; Josh. 4:3–9). Large stones could also be used to cover a well (Gen. 29:2–3) or to seal a cave or tomb, such as at the tombs of Lazarus (John 11:38–39) and of Jesus (Matt. 27:60; Mark 16:3–4).

Stone was used as a construction material, particularly for the temple (1 Kings 5:15–18; 1 Chron. 2:22; Ezra 5:8; Hag. 2:15; Mark 13:1–2). Stone was used in a building’s foundation and for the cornerstone or capstone (1 Kings 5:17; Jer. 51:26; Isa. 28:16), as well as for the walls (Hab. 2:11). Psalm 118:22 refers metaphorically to the stone rejected by the builders becoming the cornerstone. In the NT, this is interpreted as referring to Jesus (Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7; cf. Eph. 2:20). Stone could also function as a writing material (Josh. 8:32), such as the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed (Exod. 24:12; Deut. 9:9–11; 1 Kings 8:9; cf. 2 Cor. 3:3, 7). Stone was also carved, although at Sinai the Israelites are instructed not to use cut or “dressed” stones when constructing an altar (Exod. 20:25; cf. Josh. 8:31). The phrase “carved stone” refers specifically to idols, since stone was one material used for crafting false gods (Lev. 26:1; cf. Deut. 4:28; 29:17; 2 Kings 19:18; Isa. 37:19; Rev. 9:20); the term “stone” itself can therefore be used to refer to an idol, especially in the phrase “wood and stone” (Jer. 3:9; Ezek. 20:32).

Stones were used as a weapon or instrument of destruction, whether thrown by hand (Num. 35:17, 23) or flung with a sling (Judg. 20:16; 1 Sam. 17:40, 49–50; Prov. 26:8). The verb “to stone” refers to the throwing of stones at an individual, which typically functioned as an official manner of execution (Exod. 19:13; 21:28–29; Deut. 21:20–21; 1 Kings 21:13–15; John 8:5; Acts 7:58–59), although it was at times the action of an angry crowd (Exod. 17:4; 1 Kings 12:18; cf. John 8:59).

The phrases “precious stones” and “costly stones” refer to gems (2 Sam. 12:30; Esther 1:6; Isa. 54:12; 1 Cor. 3:12). Gems were used as a display of wealth or honor (1 Kings 10:2, 10–11; 2 Chron. 32:27; Ezek. 27:22) and for decoration (1 Chron. 3:6; Rev. 17:4; 18:16). The two stones on the high priest’s ephod and the twelve precious stones on his breastpiece represented the twelve tribes (Exod. 25:7; 28:9–12, 17–21), a symbolism echoed in the twelve types of precious stones adorning the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20).

Rocks and stones are used often in metaphors or similes (e.g., hard as a rock, still as a stone). They can represent something that is common (1 Kings 10:27; Job 5:23; Matt. 3:9; 4:3), strong (Job 6:12), hard (Job 38:30; 41:24), heavy (Exod. 15:5; Prov. 27:3), motionless (Exod. 15:16), or immovable (Zech. 12:3). A “heart of stone” describes coldheartedness (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26). A “stumbling stone,” which is literally a stone that causes one to stumble (Isa. 8:14), is used in the NT as a metaphor for an obstacle to faith in Jesus (Rom. 9:32–33; 1 Pet. 2:8).

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John explain that Joseph of Arimathea, “a prominent member of the Council” (Mark 15:43), the Sanhedrin, directed the process of taking Jesus’ body from the place of crucifixion to his own tomb, a “tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid” (Luke 23:53). Since Joseph was a “rich man” (Matt. 27:57), he could afford a stone tomb of this type. All the Gospel writers indicate that the tomb had a stone at its entrance, a common feature of such tombs; both Matthew (27:60) and Mark (16:4) underscore the size of the stone.

Matthew provides unique details about Jesus’ tomb in an effort to defend the authenticity of Jesus’ resurrection. Only Matthew records that Pilate, in deference to the Pharisees, assigned a guard of soldiers to secure the tomb. He also notes that the soldiers put a seal on the tomb (27:62–66), not a sealant but rather an official Roman insignia, to indicate that no one should disturb the tomb. Also, Matthew alone explains the alibi that the Jews devised when these attempts to secure the tomb proved unsuccessful (28:11–15).

On the morning of Jesus’ resurrection, some women, including Mary Magdalene, were the first to enter the tomb and note that Jesus’ body was no longer there (Mark 16:1–6; John 20:1–2). John records that Peter and another “disciple, the one Jesus loved” (likely John himself) also entered the tomb (20:2–8), the latter doing so only after “he bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there” (20:5). The low entrance that this statement implies is a known feature of rock-hewn tombs from this time period.

Two main sites in Jerusalem have been proposed as the location of Jesus’ tomb. The site on which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre sits is favored by archaeologists because of its early traditional attestation. The Garden Tomb pre-sents more visible features that could correlate with the biblical accounts but lacks traditional attestation.

The word “tongue” has several senses in both Testaments. In the OT, lashon refers to the physical organ (Judg. 7:5; Job 20:12; 41:1), the physical tongue that creates speech (2 Sam. 23:2; Job 6:30), and the physical organ in reference to individuals as they profess before God (Isa. 45:23; cf. Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:11).

The word “tongue” frequently refers to language (Gen. 10:5; Neh. 13:24; Isa. 28:11; cf. 1 Cor. 14:21). Related to this, the word refers to speech as deceitful (Ps. 52:2), as speaking strife (31:20 KJV, RSV), or as that which praises God (35:28). The tongue sings (Ps. 51:14) and extols (66:17).

The tongue is able to produce very powerful speech that can bring life and death (Prov. 18:21). To guard one’s speech is to be trouble-free (21:23). Soft and forbearing speech is persuasive and wins the day rather than aggravates (25:15). Flattering speech seems favorable but will be disregarded in the end (28:23).

The speech of God is a consuming fire (Isa. 30:27). The mute will have speech when all things are set right in the eschaton (35:6).

In the OT, the word “tongue” is used in parallel with several other words. The physical organ is parallel to lips (Ps. 12:4), mouth (Job 33:2; Pss. 10:7; 50:19), or throat (Ps. 5:9, where the tongue is the source of flattery).

A similar Hebrew word, sapah, has several senses, among them “lip” (and so also often of the edge or shore of a body of water), and can refer to the language produced by lips. It is sometimes placed in parallel with lashon (Ps. 12:4).

In the NT, the word glōssa refers to the physical organ (Mark 7:33–35) and language (Acts 2:11; 1 Cor. 14:21 [heteroglōssos]) and can refer to the miraculous gift of languages (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor. 12–14). Luke also uses the word in the unusual description of the gift of languages coming on the disciples—tongues of fire resting on each one of them (Acts 2:3).

Finally, James, writing in the style of OT wisdom literature, notes that an uncontrolled tongue—unbridled speech—is not indicative of the people of God (James 1:26–27) and is ultimately destructive (3:5–10). See also Speech Impediment.

A week signifies a group of seven, most often a group of seven days marked by the Sabbath on the last day. The week serves as an important reminder of God’s creative activity (Exod. 20:11). The first day of the week prominently marks the resurrection of Jesus (cf. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; Rev. 1:10). A week also describes a full period of time, as it is used in Daniel’s interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding the return from exile (Dan. 9:24–27).

Typically associated with glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14) and purity (Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4), white is a color worn by both angels (Mark 16:2; John 20:12; Acts 1:10) and heavenly saints (Rev. 7:9). On skin, however, white is abnormal, indicating a skin disease (Exod. 4:6; Lev. 13:3–4). Snow is often used in similes or comparisons to depict the color white (Exod. 4:6; Num. 12:10; 2 Kings 5:27; Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:18; Dan. 7:9; Matt. 28:3; Rev. 1:14). See also Colors.

The visible and bodily ascent of Jesus from earth to heaven concluding his earthly ministry, which then continued through the promised Holy Spirit, given at Pentecost.

A detailed historical account of the ascension is given only by Luke (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:4–11 [cf. Mark 16:19, in the longer ending to Mark’s Gospel]). The event, however, was anticipated in John’s Gospel (John 6:62; 20:17).

The ascension is frequently implied throughout the NT by reference to the complex of events that began with the death of Jesus and ended with his session at the right hand of God in glory. Paul writes of the divine-human Christ’s ascent to the heavenly realms as the beginning of his supreme cosmic reign in power (Eph. 1:20–23) and as the basis for holy living (Col. 3:1–4; 1 Tim. 3:16). In Hebrews, the ascension is a crucial stage that marks off the completed work of Jesus on earth, in which he offered himself as the perfect and final sacrifice for sin (9:24–26), from his continuing work in heaven as our great high priest, which is described in terms of sympathy (4:14–16) and intercession (7:25). Peter makes the most direct reference to the ascension, explaining that Jesus, who suffered, is resurrected and “has gone into heaven” (1 Pet. 3:22). Therefore, just as Jesus, the righteous sufferer, was vindicated by God, so too will his people who suffer for doing good.

Paul understands the OT as predicting Christ’s ascension (Eph. 4:7–10; cf. Ps. 68:18) and containing incidents that in some way prefigure it (2 Kings 2:11–12).

The ascension is significant for at least three reasons. First, Christ’s death could not have full effect until he entered the heavenly sanctuary. From heaven he acts as advocate and communicates to believers through the Holy Spirit all the gifts and blessings that he died on the cross to gain (Heb. 4:14–16; 1 John 2:1). Second, glorified humanity is now in God’s presence, guaranteeing that we likewise will be raised up with body and soul to share the glory yet to be revealed (John 14:2; 17:24; Eph. 2:4–6). Third, the ascension previews the manner of Christ’s second coming (Acts 1:11). Jesus’ ascension was followed by his enthronement in heaven, where he reigns (1 Cor. 15:25) and from which he will physically return in the same glorified body as judge (Luke 21:27). See also Advent, Second; Second Coming.

The Bible does not have a generic term for the idea of color, but it does use various colors for descriptive and symbolic purposes, and it also refers to different coloring processes. Items can be described as “dyed” (Exod. 25:5), “multicolored” (Ezek. 27:24), or “speckled” (Gen. 30:32) to indicate changes or variety of color.

Certain colors are commonly used in the Bible (listed below), while others occur rarely (e.g., brown and yellow) or not at all (e.g., orange), reflecting the range of colors and dyes available in the ancient Near East. Colors are most often used for two purposes: to describe luxury items indicating wealth and power, and to describe the earthly and heavenly dwelling places of God. Ordinary people and places are not usually described in terms of the colors of their appearance. Exceptions to this include Esau (Gen. 25:25), David (1 Sam. 17:42), and the male lover in Song of Songs (5:10–11).

The following colors have particular significance or symbolic meaning in the Bible:

White. Used to describe the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13:3–4), white much more commonly has a positive association, being the color of purity (Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4) and glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14). Angels appear white (Matt. 28:3) or are dressed in white (Mark 16:2; Acts 1:10). The multitude of worshipers in heaven will wear white robes (Rev. 7:9), having been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Black. The female lover in the Song of Songs admires the raven black hair of her beloved (Song 5:11). However, black things usually have less positive connotations: storm clouds (1 Kings 18:45), diseased skin (Job 30:30), and the effects of the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:15). Blackness can also be a sign of judgment (Rev. 6:5, 12).

Red. Red is the color of the earth, the color of wine, and the color of blood. Red dyes could be made from crushed insects, plants, and minerals, giving a wide range of different shades (red, scarlet, and crimson are common in the Bible). Scarlet yarn and red-dyed animal skins were included in the offerings made for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:3–5). Red was used to symbolize sin (Isa. 1:18) and was also associated with warfare (Nah. 2:3; Rev. 6:4).

Blue. Blue tassels adorned every Hebrew garment as a reminder of God’s commandments (Num. 15:38). In the Persian court the royal colors were blue, white, and purple (Esther 1:6; 8:15), and blue garments were worn by the young Assyrian governors (Ezek. 23:6).

Purple. Purple dye was very expensive, so purple cloth was used as a sign of wealth (Prov. 31:22; Acts 16:14) and a sign of authority: the kings of Midian wore purple garments (Judg. 8:26); the wedding carriage of King Solomon was upholstered in purple (Song 3:10); the Babylonian king Belshazzar offered purple robes as a reward for service (Dan. 5:7). Purple robes were put on Jesus before his crucifixion in a mockery of his kingship (John 19:2–5).

Blue, purple, and scarlet were each separately associated with wealth and power, but when used together these three colors were the epitome of opulence and, as such, were associated with the divine presence. The tabernacle curtains were woven from blue, purple, and scarlet yarn (Exod. 26:1), as were the high-priestly garments (28:4–15, 33). The same colors were later used in the temple curtains (2 Chron. 3:14). Blue, purple, and red cloths were used for covering the Ark of the Covenant and its furnishings (Num. 4:6–12). Jeremiah describes idols adorned in blue and purple, an attempt to conceal their worthlessness (10:9).

Gray. Gray hair indicated old age and thus wisdom (Ps. 71:18; Prov. 16:31).

Green. Green is the color of plants and thus was associated with life-giving food and therefore God’s blessing. Green plants were given by God for food (Gen. 1:30), so their removal or destruction was a devastating judgment (Exod. 10:15; Ezek. 17:24; Rev. 8:7). People could be symbolized as green plants when they were fruitful and blessed (Ps. 92:14; Jer. 17:8) or when they were easily destroyed (2 Kings 19:26; Ps. 37:2).

Twilight before sunrise (Gen. 19:15; Job 3:9; cf. Prov. 4:18). People typically slept from dusk to dawn (but see Judg. 19:25; 1 Sam. 14:36), beginning activity at sunrise (Judg. 16:2; Neh. 4:21; Dan. 6:19). The psalmist and Jesus pray before dawn (Ps. 119:147; Mark 1:35). Jesus was raised from the dead before dawn (Mark 16:2), making the time a symbol of the resurrection (2 Pet. 1:19).

The act of expelling demons from afflicted persons, places, and objects.

New Testament. There is no record of exorcism in the OT. In the NT, Jesus considered delivering people from demons to be central to his proclamation of the kingdom of God: “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28). He used no formula or ritual; on his own authority he simply commanded the demons to leave, and he attributed his success to God. He also extended to his disciples the authority to expel demons in his name (Luke 10:17), dependent upon their faith (Matt. 17:17–20). Even a nondisciple was found performing exorcisms in Jesus’ name (Mark 9:38), and when Jesus was told about it, he refused to forbid it.

Jesus is not shown struggling against the demons; he simply spoke, and they obeyed, even at a distance (Mark 7:30). Often the demons recognized Jesus (e.g., Mark 5:7); sometimes they left the person with Jesus’ permission. Although Jesus’ exorcisms are listed along with healing miracles, the NT differentiates between exorcism and healing (e.g., Matt. 10:8); not every disease is considered to have been caused by demons, nor is every possessed person described in terms of illness.

Philip’s ministry in Samaria was enhanced by his casting out demons and healing the sick (Acts 8:6–7). In Acts 16:18 Paul performs an exorcism “in the name of Jesus Christ.” But while the ministry of Paul was so profound that articles associated with him were effective in exorcisms (Acts 19:11–12), the Jewish sons of Sceva were themselves overcome when they invoked the names of Jesus and Paul in an attempted deliverance (19:13–16). In the longer (and inauthentic) ending of Mark, the ability to cast out demons is promised to all believers (Mark 16:17).

Early church. Exorcism is attested in the writings of the early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr (2 Apol. 6 [early second century] and Tertullian (Apol. 23 [early third century]), as an ongoing ministry of the church. Both men emphasize the power of the name of Christ in commanding demons. Justin Martyr reports that the name of Jesus delivered people not cured by other exorcists, who used “incantations and drugs.” Tertullian explains that the name of Christ recalled to the demons their coming judgment at the hands of God, and that fear made them subject to the servants of God and Christ. Not only verbal commands were used; often there was laying on of hands, breathing, and making the sign of the cross.

As with much of the spiritual excesses of the Middle Ages, superstition about demons and witches led to widespread persecution of many people accused of being “possessed” or “in league with the devil.” The Protestant Reformation represented a rejection of this, with exorcisms being abolished by the Lutherans and Calvinists. The Roman Catholic Church restricted its practice in 1614 (see below for Catholic use today).

Modern practices. Modern liberal thought tends to dismiss demonic possession as a manifestation of psychological maladies not understood by the early church. Jesus’ dealing with these cases is explained as condescension to first-century limitations of medical knowledge. However, more-traditional theology continues to recognize demonic possession as an actual supernatural phenomenon.

The Roman Catholic Church’s Roman Ritual contains the rite of exorcism as approved in 1998. Catholics also perform a baptismal exorcism as a prophylactic measure and in demonstration of the fact that the baptized will be free from the power of the devil.

Pentecostal groups may distinguish between “demon possession” and “demon influence,” the latter being grounds for a “deliverance,” a term intentionally different from “exorcism,” which they perceive to be a Catholic ritual. Deliverances can be frequent in Pentecostal churches. Mainline Protestant denominations retain the idea of exorcism, but these are usually quite rare. The Episcopal Church sanctions exorcisms by permission of the bishop.

The Bible does not have a generic term for the idea of color, but it does use various colors for descriptive and symbolic purposes, and it also refers to different coloring processes. Items can be described as “dyed” (Exod. 25:5), “multicolored” (Ezek. 27:24), or “speckled” (Gen. 30:32) to indicate changes or variety of color.

Certain colors are commonly used in the Bible (listed below), while others occur rarely (e.g., brown and yellow) or not at all (e.g., orange), reflecting the range of colors and dyes available in the ancient Near East. Colors are most often used for two purposes: to describe luxury items indicating wealth and power, and to describe the earthly and heavenly dwelling places of God. Ordinary people and places are not usually described in terms of the colors of their appearance. Exceptions to this include Esau (Gen. 25:25), David (1 Sam. 17:42), and the male lover in Song of Songs (5:10–11).

The following colors have particular significance or symbolic meaning in the Bible:

White. Used to describe the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13:3–4), white much more commonly has a positive association, being the color of purity (Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4) and glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14). Angels appear white (Matt. 28:3) or are dressed in white (Mark 16:2; Acts 1:10). The multitude of worshipers in heaven will wear white robes (Rev. 7:9), having been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Black. The female lover in the Song of Songs admires the raven black hair of her beloved (Song 5:11). However, black things usually have less positive connotations: storm clouds (1 Kings 18:45), diseased skin (Job 30:30), and the effects of the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:15). Blackness can also be a sign of judgment (Rev. 6:5, 12).

Red. Red is the color of the earth, the color of wine, and the color of blood. Red dyes could be made from crushed insects, plants, and minerals, giving a wide range of different shades (red, scarlet, and crimson are common in the Bible). Scarlet yarn and red-dyed animal skins were included in the offerings made for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:3–5). Red was used to symbolize sin (Isa. 1:18) and was also associated with warfare (Nah. 2:3; Rev. 6:4).

Blue. Blue tassels adorned every Hebrew garment as a reminder of God’s commandments (Num. 15:38). In the Persian court the royal colors were blue, white, and purple (Esther 1:6; 8:15), and blue garments were worn by the young Assyrian governors (Ezek. 23:6).

Purple. Purple dye was very expensive, so purple cloth was used as a sign of wealth (Prov. 31:22; Acts 16:14) and a sign of authority: the kings of Midian wore purple garments (Judg. 8:26); the wedding carriage of King Solomon was upholstered in purple (Song 3:10); the Babylonian king Belshazzar offered purple robes as a reward for service (Dan. 5:7). Purple robes were put on Jesus before his crucifixion in a mockery of his kingship (John 19:2–5).

Blue, purple, and scarlet were each separately associated with wealth and power, but when used together these three colors were the epitome of opulence and, as such, were associated with the divine presence. The tabernacle curtains were woven from blue, purple, and scarlet yarn (Exod. 26:1), as were the high-priestly garments (28:4–15, 33). The same colors were later used in the temple curtains (2 Chron. 3:14). Blue, purple, and red cloths were used for covering the Ark of the Covenant and its furnishings (Num. 4:6–12). Jeremiah describes idols adorned in blue and purple, an attempt to conceal their worthlessness (10:9).

Gray. Gray hair indicated old age and thus wisdom (Ps. 71:18; Prov. 16:31).

Green. Green is the color of plants and thus was associated with life-giving food and therefore God’s blessing. Green plants were given by God for food (Gen. 1:30), so their removal or destruction was a devastating judgment (Exod. 10:15; Ezek. 17:24; Rev. 8:7). People could be symbolized as green plants when they were fruitful and blessed (Ps. 92:14; Jer. 17:8) or when they were easily destroyed (2 Kings 19:26; Ps. 37:2).

The books of Genesis through Esther in the OT and Matthew through Acts in the NT often are categorized as history. However, in the ancient world the literary genre of history in the modern sense did not exist. Moreover, the English word “history” is ambiguous and can refer to either the events of the past or verbal accounts of these events. For the sake of clarity, this article refers to verbal accounts of the past as historiography and to the events themselves as history. Historiography is a genre wherein a nation or group attempts to render an account of its collective past. Biblical historiography was a creative attempt to depict and interpret events of the past, constrained by its sources (and inspired by the Holy Spirit), emphasizing Israel’s and the church’s relationship with God. The historian engaged in research, gathering information from oral or written sources, then recorded his findings in a unified narrative. This process set apart ancient historians from storytellers; however, ancient historiography was in fact closer to storytelling than modern history writing.

Methods of Ancient Historiography

Biblical writers used techniques similar to those of ancient Greek historians. Greek historiography was often organized thematically, using genealogies, speeches, or narrative formulas as structuring devices, instead of strictly following chronological order. Speeches were largely the creative work of the historian rather than being drawn from transcripts in sources. Also, both the overall content and particular details of the narrative were subject to the historian’s interpretation of the events. This same historical method can be illustrated by the following biblical examples.

Second Kings 20:12–19 describes Hezekiah showing off the riches of Jerusalem to his Babylonian visitors. However, the preceding narrative describes the loss of the riches of Jerusalem to an invading Assyrian king (18:15–16). Also, in 2 Kings 20:6 Isaiah predicts that Jerusalem will be delivered from “the hand of the king of Assyria,” but this deliverance has already been recorded in 2 Kings 19. This suggests, and extrabiblical evidence confirms, that the history of 2 Kings 20 actually took place before the history of 2 Kings 18–19.

In the books of Joshua through Kings, speeches are used as structuring devices, with main characters emphasizing the central theological points of the author at key points in his story (e.g., Josh. 1:11–15 [Joshua]; 1 Sam. 12 [Samuel]; 1 Kings 8:14–61 [Solomon]). All these speeches use distinctive vocabulary, suggesting that the same author composed them. Since the writer was not present at the occasion of these speeches (as they occurred long before his birth), he composed the speech (inventing much of the wording) according to what he thought appropriate to the given situation. The creative contributions of each historian can be clearly seen when a speech is recorded in two or more biblical books (compare the Beatitudes in Matt. 5:1–12 and Luke 6:20–26, or the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8:22–53 and 2 Chron. 6:12–39). This is not to say that the speeches are historically misleading, but they were necessarily composed to present a narrative of the past. All historiography, ancient and modern, involves creative writing, selectivity, and interpretation of sources.

In comparison to its OT counterpart, NT historiography was written quite close to the events that it records, but it still shows great variation in descriptive details. For example, the resurrection narrative in Matt. 28:2 mentions one angel, Mark 16:5 refers to a young man, Luke 24:4 speaks of two men, and John 20:12 mentions two angels. Rather than indicating the fictional nature of the event, the differences are due to the interpretation that guided their writing (i.e., the person near Christ’s tomb, appearing to be human to some, was interpreted as an angel by others). When dealing with OT narratives, which often chronicle events from the distant past, we must remember that its historiography is interpretative in nature and does not attempt to merely recount what happened as objectively as possible. For example, 2 Kings 15:37 records an attack against Judah by foreign kings; however, the author does not describe any reasons for the attack, simply saying, “In those days the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah.” While no doubt there were indeed political reasons for the attack, the author does not comment on these reasons but instead gives a theological interpretation to explain it. In fact, theological reasons for past events and their relevance for the present and the future characterize biblical historiography. The ultimate explanation for historical events is God and his providential mastery of history.

The Function and Reliability of Biblical Historiography

Biblical historiography emphasizes continuity with the past by viewing the present as continuing the past’s story and focusing on cause-and-effect relationships in the past to explain the present and bring out a theological message for its readers. For example, 2 Kings 17 describes the Assyrians destroying northern Israel and deporting its population. This is as much as a modern historian would derive from the event. However, in the Bible this event is significant because “all this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the Lord their God. . . . They worshiped other gods” (2 Kings 17:7). This interpretation is elaborated in the chapter, dominating vv. 7–23, while the narration of the event itself is succinctly described in vv. 3–6. The theological interpretation of the event was more important than the event itself.

This does not mean that biblical historiography is fictitious, as it is clearly based on actual events that took place in the past. Biblical historiography has been largely corroborated by extrabiblical material and fits well into an overall ancient Near Eastern historical context, though it does not agree perfectly with everything we know about ancient history. Since recognizing the genre (e.g., parable, poem) of any biblical passage is imperative for correct interpretation, knowledge of the differences between ancient and modern historiography is vital for understanding the historical books of the Bible. Scripture affirms that God spoke in a variety of ways (Heb. 1:1); one way was through the genre of historiography.

The books of Genesis through Esther in the OT and Matthew through Acts in the NT often are categorized as history. However, in the ancient world the literary genre of history in the modern sense did not exist. Moreover, the English word “history” is ambiguous and can refer to either the events of the past or verbal accounts of these events. For the sake of clarity, this article refers to verbal accounts of the past as historiography and to the events themselves as history. Historiography is a genre wherein a nation or group attempts to render an account of its collective past. Biblical historiography was a creative attempt to depict and interpret events of the past, constrained by its sources (and inspired by the Holy Spirit), emphasizing Israel’s and the church’s relationship with God. The historian engaged in research, gathering information from oral or written sources, then recorded his findings in a unified narrative. This process set apart ancient historians from storytellers; however, ancient historiography was in fact closer to storytelling than modern history writing.

Methods of Ancient Historiography

Biblical writers used techniques similar to those of ancient Greek historians. Greek historiography was often organized thematically, using genealogies, speeches, or narrative formulas as structuring devices, instead of strictly following chronological order. Speeches were largely the creative work of the historian rather than being drawn from transcripts in sources. Also, both the overall content and particular details of the narrative were subject to the historian’s interpretation of the events. This same historical method can be illustrated by the following biblical examples.

Second Kings 20:12–19 describes Hezekiah showing off the riches of Jerusalem to his Babylonian visitors. However, the preceding narrative describes the loss of the riches of Jerusalem to an invading Assyrian king (18:15–16). Also, in 2 Kings 20:6 Isaiah predicts that Jerusalem will be delivered from “the hand of the king of Assyria,” but this deliverance has already been recorded in 2 Kings 19. This suggests, and extrabiblical evidence confirms, that the history of 2 Kings 20 actually took place before the history of 2 Kings 18–19.

In the books of Joshua through Kings, speeches are used as structuring devices, with main characters emphasizing the central theological points of the author at key points in his story (e.g., Josh. 1:11–15 [Joshua]; 1 Sam. 12 [Samuel]; 1 Kings 8:14–61 [Solomon]). All these speeches use distinctive vocabulary, suggesting that the same author composed them. Since the writer was not present at the occasion of these speeches (as they occurred long before his birth), he composed the speech (inventing much of the wording) according to what he thought appropriate to the given situation. The creative contributions of each historian can be clearly seen when a speech is recorded in two or more biblical books (compare the Beatitudes in Matt. 5:1–12 and Luke 6:20–26, or the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8:22–53 and 2 Chron. 6:12–39). This is not to say that the speeches are historically misleading, but they were necessarily composed to present a narrative of the past. All historiography, ancient and modern, involves creative writing, selectivity, and interpretation of sources.

In comparison to its OT counterpart, NT historiography was written quite close to the events that it records, but it still shows great variation in descriptive details. For example, the resurrection narrative in Matt. 28:2 mentions one angel, Mark 16:5 refers to a young man, Luke 24:4 speaks of two men, and John 20:12 mentions two angels. Rather than indicating the fictional nature of the event, the differences are due to the interpretation that guided their writing (i.e., the person near Christ’s tomb, appearing to be human to some, was interpreted as an angel by others). When dealing with OT narratives, which often chronicle events from the distant past, we must remember that its historiography is interpretative in nature and does not attempt to merely recount what happened as objectively as possible. For example, 2 Kings 15:37 records an attack against Judah by foreign kings; however, the author does not describe any reasons for the attack, simply saying, “In those days the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah.” While no doubt there were indeed political reasons for the attack, the author does not comment on these reasons but instead gives a theological interpretation to explain it. In fact, theological reasons for past events and their relevance for the present and the future characterize biblical historiography. The ultimate explanation for historical events is God and his providential mastery of history.

The Function and Reliability of Biblical Historiography

Biblical historiography emphasizes continuity with the past by viewing the present as continuing the past’s story and focusing on cause-and-effect relationships in the past to explain the present and bring out a theological message for its readers. For example, 2 Kings 17 describes the Assyrians destroying northern Israel and deporting its population. This is as much as a modern historian would derive from the event. However, in the Bible this event is significant because “all this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the Lord their God. . . . They worshiped other gods” (2 Kings 17:7). This interpretation is elaborated in the chapter, dominating vv. 7–23, while the narration of the event itself is succinctly described in vv. 3–6. The theological interpretation of the event was more important than the event itself.

This does not mean that biblical historiography is fictitious, as it is clearly based on actual events that took place in the past. Biblical historiography has been largely corroborated by extrabiblical material and fits well into an overall ancient Near Eastern historical context, though it does not agree perfectly with everything we know about ancient history. Since recognizing the genre (e.g., parable, poem) of any biblical passage is imperative for correct interpretation, knowledge of the differences between ancient and modern historiography is vital for understanding the historical books of the Bible. Scripture affirms that God spoke in a variety of ways (Heb. 1:1); one way was through the genre of historiography.

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

The word “mission” was coined by the Jesuits in the sixteenth century to refer to the sending of the Godhead into the world, reflecting a particular trinitarian formulation. The Jesuits used the term “mission” to describe the Father, who sends the Son, who sends the Holy Spirit, who sends the church into the world as an agent of redemption and reconciliation. Simply put, the Jesuits conceived of mission as sending. That biblical term “send” (e.g., Gk. apostellō) described the fundamental nature of the church as being sent by God into the world with a specific purpose, animated by the Holy Spirit to accomplish its task given by God, as a sign and instrument of God’s kingdom. Initially, the Jesuits employed the term in the context of both the conversion of heathens (those who failed to recognize the God of the Bible) and the reconversion of Protestants to Roman Catholicism.

The biblical notion of mission affirms that God is a sending God (Lat., missio Dei), who loves the world so much that he sent his Son into the world to redeem it (e.g., John 3:16), and whose Son then sends the Holy Spirit as the Counselor (Gk. paraklētos [e.g., John 16:5–7]) and guide so that the church can fulfill its purpose. Mission (sending), therefore, expresses both the heart of God and the nature of the church in the world.

The Role of Language and Culture

Functionally, mission is the sharing of the good news of Jesus Christ in word and deed across cultural and linguistic boundaries, without granting any particular language or culture a superior position in the divine economy. The Bible tells the story of God’s mission in offering human beings a covenantal relationship with himself. South African mission scholar David Bosch suggests that the missionary in the OT is God himself, whereas the NT presents several significant missionaries, with Jesus and his disciples being the most illustrative examples. Indeed, it can be said that the NT is itself a mission document, since it was written by people actively involved in mission (e.g., Paul, Luke). Biblically, the Christian mission implies a certain perspective on language and culture whereby all languages and cultures are relativized in the light of Christ, with no language or culture having privileged access to God, for God communicates through every particular language and culture. Thus, for instance, Koreans, Zulus, Cambodians, Quechuas, and Swedes have the same access to God through their own language and culture, and none of them are required to adopt another language or culture, such as Hebrew, Greek, or English, in order to know and worship God.

The importance of the parity of languages and cultures worldwide as vehicles of the gospel is exemplified biblically in the account of the Jerusalem council, where the apostle Paul confronted Jewish Christians who would have made Torah and circumcision the litmus test of authentic faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 15). Paul argued vigorously against those who sought to require new Christians to adopt Jewish ceremonial practices of the OT in order to join the body of Christ. The relativization of language and culture is so crucial to Christian mission that Scripture records Paul rebuking Peter for seeking to make Gentile Christians follow Jewish customs (Gal. 2:14). Requiring followers of Christ to adopt Jewish (or other) ceremonial traditions (e.g., circumcision) would render the grace of Christ useless, making a mockery of the cross (Gal. 2:21), since Christ liberates human beings within their own language and culture. Simply put, people were to become followers of Jesus Christ on the basis of their own language and culture (Greek or otherwise) rather than according to any other tradition. According to the biblical account, no language or culture is too profane to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ.

Mission as Sending

Biblically, sending implies a sender, the one sent, and a message. The sender is the agent who initiates the deliverance of the message. The one sent has been given the authority to deliver in word and deed the message of the sender. The message refers to the content in word and deed that is shared by the agent (e.g., missionary) of the sender. The authority of the sender is invested in the messenger, so much so that the messenger (e.g., the missionary) represents the sender directly. More broadly, the biblical term “sending” appears in both Testaments, and it occurs in mundane contexts that are not concerned with God’s mission (missio Dei) as well as in texts that are explicitly mission related. In the OT, the Hebrew term shalakh, which occurs in various forms over eight hundred times, refers to sending the intentions of an authority figure, often a king, judge, or other person of high status. An example would be God, as a demonstration of his authority, sending Adam out of the garden (Gen. 3:23). The act of sending expresses the intention of the sender. The mission of God as presented in the OT is communicated clearly in Gen. 12:1–3 (in what is known as the Abrahamic covenant), where God tells Abram to leave his country, guided by God, in order to be a blessing to the entire world. Following Israel’s continual disobedience, God promises to send them a savior (Isa. 19:20), a statement that Christians interpret as foreshadowing the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ.

In the NT, the Greek terms for “send,” and their variations, occur over two hundred times, appearing in texts such as “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves” (Matt. 10:16); “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21); and “Jesus sent two of his disciples” (Mark 11:1). People often assume that there is one Great Commission text, Matt. 28:18–20, which summarizes the biblical warrant for mission. However, there are several “great commissions” in the Gospels, which might be better understood as “last commissions.” Each Gospel writer records his own version of the last commission, reflecting his theological purposes within the particular contexts out of which he writes his account. The last commissions appear in Matt. 28:16–20; Mark 16:14–20; Luke 24:44–47; John 20:19–23.

The most responsible interpretive strategy with regard to these passages is to read them within the larger context of each Gospel narrative rather than as individual texts (i.e., proof texts) disconnected from their wider context. That is to say, a faithful theology of mission in part entails letting the text interpret itself through study of the entire Gospel account. Otherwise, one may fail to understand the biblical notion of mission in its entirety. For instance, Luke 24:47 announces that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his [Christ’s] name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” which emphasizes the need for confession, forgiveness, and redemption (vertical aspects of mission). Yet one could misinterpret Luke’s Gospel were one to understand mission solely through the words of Luke 24:44–47, the vertical (spiritual) aspect, while overlooking Luke 4:16–30, verses that announce Jesus’ mission to liberate captives and give sight to the blind, reflecting the horizontal (social) nature of mission. In Luke’s Gospel, mission is characterized as equally vertical (i.e., calling for repentance and forgiveness) and horizontal (i.e., seeking sociopolitical justice). According to Luke’s Gospel, then, both vertical and horizontal aspects must be present in mission.

Mission and Missions

It is worthwhile to note the difference between the terms “mission” (sg.) and “missions” (pl.). Whereas “mission” refers to the singular act of God, who sends his Son, who sends the Holy Spirit into the world, “missions” refers to the specific agencies and organizations in history and currently that have sought to carry out that mission of God. There is only one mission (missio Dei), with several missions aiming to accomplish that singular mission through time and space. Generally, missions are divided into denominational and faith missions. Denominational missions, such as those of Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian churches, send out missionaries financially supported by the denomination. Faith missions, such as Wycliffe Bible Translators, Operation Mobilization, or SIM (Serving in Mission, formally Sudan Interior Mission), require that missionaries serve in mission by faith, either by going where they are called by God without having prior financial support or by raising financial support from friends and churches prior to leaving for their intended region of service.

Conclusion

Finally, there are two important lessons from the biblical account of mission. First, Paul and the other disciples, while seeking to communicate the gospel of good news to particular people, sought to maintain the unity of the churches in the face of their diverse cultural and linguistic makeup (e.g., Eph. 4:4–7). This means that a biblical perspective on mission sees culture and language as channels rather than obstacles to the communication of the gospel. Second, Paul and the disciples never started missions but rather established churches. Since mission implies movement across cultural and linguistic frontiers, the earlier followers of Christ were on the move, with the conviction that the Holy Spirit would guide, direct, and protect them until Christ returned.

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

NT textual criticism is the science of discerning the reading of the original Greek text of the NT. NT textual criticism is relatively different from the textual criticism of the Hebrew OT, since the two Testaments were copied in substantially different ways, resulting in quite different issues and types of copying problems.

Textual criticism is necessary for two reasons: (1) none of the original texts for any of the books of the NT (the autographs) have survived; (2) all the surviving copies that we do have differ from one another in at least minor ways. NT textual criticism is the discipline of examining all the readings found in the surviving copies (including other early translations and the writings of the church fathers) in order to discern the most-likely original text of the NT.

In many ways there is nothing surprising or unusual about this activity. This same discipline is used in the case of all ancient documents where the original no longer exists and there are multiple, but different, surviving copies. What sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of Plato, Aristotle, or any other extrabiblical author is the importance of Scripture. It is absolutely crucial that scholars be as accurate as possible in discerning the words of the Bible. Present-day doctrinal statements about the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture usually focus on how it is the actual documents written by the original authors of the Bible (the autographs) that were inspired and inerrant, and not necessarily each and every copy or translation that was ever made. At the same time, NT textual criticism provides strong and ample evidence that the standard translations of today are reasonable copies of the original texts and therefore are inspired and authoritative.

Another reality that sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of any other ancient document involves the large number of manuscripts containing all or parts of the NT. Aristotle’s writings (384–322 BC) have survived in only five ancient manuscripts, the earliest of which was last copied around AD 1100. Thus, the manuscript support for discerning the proper wording of Aristotle’s writings is five manuscripts, the earliest of which was copied some fourteen hundred years after its original composition. The NT, by contrast, has been preserved in almost 5,500 handwritten Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which may be only decades removed from the actual composition of the NT. In addition, there are tens of thousands of other manuscripts of the NT translated into other languages of the early church (especially Latin, Syriac, and Coptic) and perhaps something like a million quotations and allusions to the NT in the writings of the church fathers. The amount of manuscript support for the Bible is without parallel when compared with any other ancient writing, thus providing a firm foundation for the trustworthiness of the Bible.

New Testament Manuscripts

If all the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT from all the museums and ancient-book rooms around the world could be gathered together and examined, there would be a number of obvious differences. For one thing, these manuscripts are written on different materials. The oldest manuscripts include some 116 papyri written on papyrus sheets (made from the stems of a papyrus plant pressed together to make a flat writing surface) and date from as early as AD 125 until the eighth century. Virtually all the rest of the hand-copied manuscripts were written on parchment (leather from animal skins stretched thin) and range in date from the second century to as late as the sixteenth century.

Another significant difference involves the style of handwriting. Here there are two primary categories: uncials (majuscules) and minuscules. The three hundred or so uncial manuscripts were written using an early style of “capital letters” (comparable to hand-printing a text in all capital letters) and range in date from the second century to as late as the tenth or eleventh century, with the majority between the fourth and tenth centuries. The 2,800 or so minuscule manuscripts were written in a later style of semicursive using primarily “lowercase letters” (more comparable to cursive penmanship today) and range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries.

A third basic difference involves the arrangement of the material. In addition to standard biblical texts arranged in regular canonical order, almost half (about 2,200) of the manuscripts of the Greek NT are lectionaries composed of series of short passages designed to be read on a fixed regular schedule, almost like the responsive readings found in many modern hymnals. These range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries and cover the vast majority of the passages in the NT, and thus they constitute another significant source of information about the proper reading of the original text.

Other obvious differences in outward appearance involve the scope of the original work and how well it has been preserved. Only a small number of manuscripts were written to encompass the entire Bible, including the OT (usually the Greek translation called the “Septuagint”), the NT, and frequently various books of the Apocrypha as well. Other manuscripts were designed to include only the NT. However, the vast majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT originally included only a portion of the NT (due primarily to the cost in materials and labor), most often a collection of the four Gospels, or the Pauline Epistles, or some other smaller subset of the NT. Still another reality is that many ancient manuscripts may have lost pages or the binding may have broken, leaving only incomplete sections of the original manuscript. Some NT manuscripts have survived only in the form of torn fragments, sometimes only a portion of a page in size.

Different Readings

Different readings among these manuscripts fit into two broad categories: unintentional changes and deliberate corrections. Unintentional changes took place when a scribe was genuinely trying to make a good copy and due to simple human error failed to read a letter clearly, did not hear a word clearly (assuming that the text was being dictated aloud), inadvertently wrote a homonym instead of the right word, lost the proper place on the page, or mistakenly assumed that some marginal note on the page belonged in the text. Deliberate corrections were also a recognized part of the work of a scribe whereby a scribe tried to make a text read better or more clearly. Although some of the early church fathers warn of heretics making deliberate changes in the text for theological reasons (actual instances of this are hard to document), sincere Christians sometimes sought to improve the theological clarity or style of the text.

There are various estimates of the number of places where different manuscripts have different readings. If one is taking stock of any and all differences regardless of how minor, then there are more than ten thousand different places in the text that have textual problems. The Textus Receptus, or Majority Text (underlying the KJV translation), has some five to six thousand differences from the Greek texts underlying most other, more recent English translations, although most of these are minor differences in word order, spelling, and so forth and make no practical difference in content. The standard scholarly United Bible Societies Greek NT includes a discussion of something like 1,440 sets of variant readings that were deemed sufficiently significant for inclusion in the critical apparatus. A contemporary translation such as the NIV lists over a hundred specific instances of textual uncertainty in the NT of sufficient significance to provide a possible alternative translation.

Still another question involves the theological significance of these differences among the surviving manuscripts. Although this can be a potentially threatening topic, it should be noted at the beginning that no area of Christian doctrine stands or falls because of possible textual problems. The entire foundation of theology is firm and certain. Nevertheless, there are perhaps several dozen places where textual differences have definite implications for either doctrine or practice. For example, does 1 Tim. 3:16 help establish the deity of Christ by referring to Christ as “God” (KJV), or is “he” (most modern translations) the correct reading? Or when we quote the Lord’s Prayer, should we include the final words “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen” (from the KJV)? Or, for still another issue, is it proper to preach and teach from the resurrection stories in Mark 16:9–20 or the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11 (both of which are absent from early and reliable manuscripts)? English versions answer these questions differently.

However, a large number of textual problems are more minor in nature and involve little if any practical differences in application. For example, in 1 John 1:4 was John focusing on “your” joy or “our” joy? But by far the largest category involves textual differences that make no discernible differences at all in our English translations. Examples include differences in Greek word order, a choice between certain Greek tenses, similar grammatical constructions, the usage of synonyms, and some spelling differences. Differences in this final category are so minor that often they cannot be detected in English translations.

Different Families or Text Types

Another difference involves the “text type,” or family of manuscripts. Certain manuscripts with similar readings have a family resemblance with other similar manuscripts. The issue here involves patterns of copying errors among these manuscripts. In the late nineteenth century, two British scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, developed what they identified as the genealogical method for NT textual criticism. One component of this approach involves the recognition of at least three different “families” of related manuscripts presumably related to three different geographical areas of the early church: Byzantine or Syrian manuscripts (based in Syria or the later Byzantine Empire in Turkey), Alexandrian manuscripts (based in Egypt), and Western manuscripts (based more in Italy and North Africa). This classification system involves generalizations comparable to discerning a person’s nationality and ethnic background by various physical features. Some manuscripts are relatively easy to classify using this system, others are more difficult, and still others turn out to be quite mixed in nature. Yet there is a certain helpfulness to this system.

Certain conclusions can be drawn from this classification system. The vast majority of manuscripts (some 80 to 90 percent) are the Byzantine text type. These include virtually all the minuscules and lectionaries and tend to be relatively later in date. The remaining 10 to 20 percent of the manuscripts tend to be earlier and include the Alexandrian manuscripts, the handful of Western manuscripts, and a good number of early manuscripts that cannot be easily placed in either of these two categories. The Alexandrian readings tend to be briefer and more succinct in style, while the Western readings tend to be more unusual and eccentric, in contrast to the Byzantine ones, which tend to be more polished and harmonizing.

Applying Textual Criticism

There are different approaches to NT textual criticism. The two primary ones are (1) the King James/Majority Text approach associated with the KJV, and (2) the contemporary scholarly approach followed by virtually all other standard translations beginning with Westcott and Hort’s English Revised Version of 1881. Both approaches are built around an understanding of the history of the text. The Majority Text argument is built on the assumption that the original reading will have been preserved in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, in this case the relatively later Byzantine manuscripts. The contemporary scholarly approach assumes a so-called genealogical method whereby the Majority Text of the Byzantine manuscripts is believed to be the later “offspring” of the earlier Alexandrian and Western manuscripts and therefore more or less irrelevant for discovering the original text. Thus, this method essentially rejects the Byzantine manuscripts in favor of the earlier ones, especially the Alexandrian ones. Manuscripts are still counted and dated, but priority is given to the earlier manuscripts and to readings found in several different text types.

Textual Criticism, Old Testament–Centuries separate the earliest attested Hebrew manuscripts (MSS) and the canonical form of the biblical text. The transmission of the Hebrew Bible in many ancient and medieval sources reveals differences between the texts; consequently, textual criticism involves the comparison and analysis of those textual differences in both ancient sources and modern printed editions of the OT. Text critics collect from MSS and other textual witnesses all the details in which these texts differ from one another and then evaluate those differences to arrive at the most accurate original reading. Some of these differences were created in the course of textual transmission, while others are the result of scribal additions and the processes that created readings and texts over the centuries. In many cases, these differences are minimal and exert no significant theological or interpretational influence on the text itself.

Goals and Assumptions

The text critic seeks to recover the processes of the text’s written transmission so as to restore it not to the most ancient form or earliest literary strand of the biblical corpus, nor to the earliest attested textual form, but rather to the copy that contained the finished literary product and that stood at the beginning of the textual transmission process. Consequently, the text critic accepts the notion of a single, authentic text (Urtext) from which all extant MSS of a specific book have evolved rather than the existence of ancient parallel texts. Text critics identify and resolve textual errors in the text by revealing the history of their emergence, explaining how those errors or inconsistencies occurred. They consider and evaluate deviant or differing readings from the textual apparatus (notes written at the bottom of the printed critical versions) of the Masoretic Text (MT), such as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and R. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. Textual scholars remove or correct readings from extant or existing final forms of MSS and sometimes, in the absence of manuscript evidence, conjecturally emend or “suggest translational alternatives” for the text when the extant evidence defies a reasonable or clear reading. The most recent work by the Hebrew University Bible Project (HUBP) eliminates all scholarly conjectures proposed without manuscript evidence from its consideration in the text-critical process.

Discrepancies between textual witnesses to the OT include differences in book, chapter, and verse divisions, as well as layout and chapter sequence. The nature of scribal transmission assumes that although the scribes carefully copied the sacred texts, errors occasionally occurred. These textual corruptions may be unintentional, such as the reduplication of a letter or a word, confusion between letters that resemble one another, wrong word divisions, incorrect vocalization, or the accidental reversal of two letters. Occasionally a word may have been omitted, or words from marginal or interlinear comments (called a “gloss”) may have been inserted in the main text. In the case of intentional corruptions or alterations, scribes attempted to harmonize the morphology or grammar of a text, give explanations (also called “conflation”), incorporate material from parallel passages, substitute euphemistic words or phrases in place of offensive material, and, rarely, alter the texts theologically when the original wording seemed disrespectful to God.

Text Families and Translations

Some scholars theorize that the Hebrew MSS evolved from three local textual families arranged geographically, though more-recent scholarship seems to refute this view as simplistic. According to this theory, during the fifth century BC two local texts developed independently of each other in Babylon and Palestine. A third, the Alexandrian family, broke off from the Old Palestinian text and eventually served as the “source” or “model” for the translation of the Septuagint (LXX) between 250 BC and AD 150. The Samaritan Pentateuch resulted from the Palestinian family and, combined with the Babylonian tradition, formed the official corpus of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. The corpus of the Latter Prophets derived solely from the Palestinian text. This combination of texts formed the authoritative basis for the MT. The Leningrad Codex (AD 1009) is the oldest preserved complete Hebrew Bible, providing one of the best examples of the MT. The 1947 discovery of the Qumran scrolls gave text-critical scholars access to customary scribal activity and affirmed the existence of pluriform, or multiple, text types. These scrolls, transmitted during the third through first centuries BC, represented all the OT books except Esther and provided a Hebrew text witness that reinforced the relative veracity of the MT.

Ancient translations, such as the LXX, provided the source text from which the Old Greek, Lucian, Eusebius, and other Greek versions developed. In addition, the LXX formed the basis of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Syriac versions as well as the Targumim. The importance of the elementary text-critical principle “Texts do not count, they weigh,” which forms the basic assumption when evaluating textual witnesses and comparing potential readings, becomes clearer in light of these developments. For example, a text critic would consider a reading in a Qumran witness as the equivalent or superior to readings attested in the LXX and its offspring texts.

Weighing Variant Readings

A consideration of variant readings involves all Hebrew and reconstructed details that differ from an accepted form of the MT, including additions, subtractions, letter and word differentiation, differences in word division, vocalization (or pronunciation), and word sequence. Scholars denote the MT as the textus receptus, or “received text,” which forms the translation base then of the Hebrew Scriptures. In some cases, critics of the OT believe that the MSS and versions reflect varying stages or versions in the editing of a final text. For example, 2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18 are parallel texts in slightly different forms. Text critics acknowledge the existence of alternate forms of identical texts that were equally acceptable to the ancient poet by assuming that during the time of the OT, authors modernized or contemporized texts in an appropriate manner. One text does not have to be superior to the other; instead, both are legitimate, as in the case of Isa. 2:2–4 and Mic. 4:1–5.

OT text critics explore explanations for contradictory or different readings among text traditions, evaluate the weight of the textual evidence, and analyze a host of readings to determine which reading best explains the others or harmonizes with the literary evidence. In addition, text scholars ask whether a particular reading is grammatically acceptable and whether the word or phrase fits into the syntactic context of the sentence and the scope of the wider passage. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, text critics generally prefer the shorter reading because throughout history texts have a tendency to expand. In addition, when the MT and all other witnesses offer a text that is unobjectionable, makes sense, and has been preserved without a variant, scholars often assume that it is the “original text” preserved by the tradition and should be accepted. Furthermore, in the case of two alternative readings, if an explanation is available as to the manner in which one of these may have arisen from the other, then scholars consider the explicable reading as the weaker of the two.

The complexity of the text-critical enterprise, particularly when applied to the Hebrew Scriptures, requires a combination of intuition, skill, experience, careful attention to detail, and facility in cognate languages. The absence of extrabiblical Hebrew texts makes the OT textual analysis more difficult, since the scholar has a limited corpus of material from which to draw conclusions. OT text criticism is an ongoing process that will engage biblical scholars for years to come.

A translation of various words in the Bible that describe the use of oil or other semisolid salves that are applied to the body and specifically not used for cooking. The NIV translators tend to prefer the words “oil,” “balm,” or “perfume” rather than “ointment,” but all these words can be used to describe the same substance.

Varieties and Value

Almost all the ointments prepared and used in the ancient Near East had an olive oil base. Exceptions to an olive oil base include oils made from a myrrh plant, cinnamon, or aloe. Often an olive oil base, which could be used by itself, was mixed by a perfumer with other spices, herbs, aromatic or medicinal plants, and/or tree products (Exod. 30:23–25). Occasionally, animals, especially sea animals, might also be used to create ointments. The actual process followed for making ointments is not completely known, although boiling often was part of the process of scent extraction (Job 41:31). Usually the perfume or ointment was carefully stored in either alabaster or lead and placed in a cool place to preserve its aromatic and medicinal qualities. The job of perfuming was, at times, considered woman’s work, as is the case when Samuel told the Israelites not to ask for a king (1 Sam. 8:13). However, the Bible records at least one male perfumer, Hananiah, who helped Nehemiah repair part of Jerusalem’s wall (Neh. 3:8).

Ointments often were used as a trading commodity and generally were considered very valuable and a special luxury item (Song 3:6–7), the exception, perhaps, being plain olive oil. The traders who bought Joseph before taking him to Egypt were trading, among other things, ointments and perfume (Gen. 37:25). King Hezekiah included ointments in his display to the envoys from Babylon when they came to see his wealth (Isa. 39:2). The prophet Amos equated the use of oil (NIV: “lotions”) to being wealthy (Amos 6:6). Ecclesiastes 7:1 regards ointment as something to be treasured. When Mary anointed Jesus’ feet with ointment, Judas Iscariot complained about the money being wasted with this action (John 12:3–6). In Mark’s Gospel a similar anointing event is recorded, with the vial of perfume valued at over three hundred denarii (Mark 14:3–5). A single denarius was roughly the equivalent of a day’s wages. Thus, the NIV translates the price as being the equivalent to a year’s pay.

Uses

There were numerous uses for ointment in the ancient Near East, including medicinal, cosmetic, religious, and burial preparation.

Probably the most common use for ointment was medicinal. Medicinal ointments were used to treat many ailments, including creating a barrier to protect wounds from infection and relieving minor skin irritations (see Isa. 1:6). The prophet Jeremiah metaphorically says that there will be no healing balm of Gilead for the people of Jerusalem after God has his way with them (Jer. 8:22; 46:11). Although it has not been confirmed in ancient documents or the archaeological record, the city of Gilead apparently was noted for its industry of making healing ointments.

Another common use for ointment was cosmetic. Esther, for example, was put on a regimen of ointment treatments (oil of myrrh) for six months and then perfume treatments for another six months (Esther 2:12). Ruth used perfume or ointment to prepare herself to see Boaz (Ruth 3:3). The use of ointment was not limited to women; men used it as well. For example, after David had finished mourning for his son, he put on ointment and resumed normal life (2 Sam. 12:20). In Eccles. 9:8 the writer advises, as part of enjoying life, “Always anoint your head with oil.”

Ointments also had many different uses within the religious life of the Israelites. For example, ointments had a special role in tabernacle worship. Exodus details the instructions for making the ointment to be used in consecration ceremonies when anointing the high priests and the furniture of the tabernacle (and later the temple). This ointment included 500 shekels of myrrh, 250 shekels of cinnamon, 250 shekels of cane, 500 shekels of cassia, and a hin of olive oil (Exod. 30:22–25). A shekel equaled somewhere between nine and sixteen ounces; thus 500 shekels was approximately 500 pounds. A hin was likely the equivalent of about one liquid gallon. The exact process for mixing the ingredients together is not given, but it must have followed a fairly standard method of preparation for it not to be detailed in the text. Interestingly, the perfumer also mixed the dry incense used in the tabernacle. Furthermore, the recipes for these special ointments were set aside and prohibited for general use by the population.

Throughout the book of Leviticus, the high priest is referred to as the “anointed priest,” which denotes the fact that the sacred ointment had been put on him and consecrated him for service to God (Lev. 4:16; 6:22; 8:12). The Hebrew term meshiakh (“messiah”) also indicates someone who has been anointed. This term, generally applied to kings, was not limited to Jewish kings; for example, Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, was considered anointed (Isa. 45:1). Prophets too were considered anointed by God (Ps. 105:15).

Ointments were also used in the preparation of a corpse for burial. Given the humid conditions of Palestine and the lack of sophisticated embalming methods, it was necessary to add ointments to the body in preparation for burial. This was also done to honor the deceased. For example, after Jesus died, the women who first discovered his resurrection had come to anoint his body with spices and ointment (Mark 16:1).

In the NT, anointing with oil took on symbolic meaning. The oil came to represent the Holy Spirit or the presence of God. For example, in Acts 10:38 it is said that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit” (cf. 4:27). James prescribes that church elders anoint the sick with oil when praying over them (James 5:14).

Terminology. The modern scientific category of reptiles (air-breathing, cold-blooded vertebrates) has no precise equivalent in the biblical vocabulary. The Hebrews described creatures by the way they moved, as “crawling things” (zakhal [Deut. 32:24; Mic. 7:17]), “creeping things” (remes [Gen. 1:25–26]), and “swarming things” (sherets [Gen. 7:21]). All these terms, which probably overlapped, included both reptiles and small mammals.

Nakhash (e.g., Gen. 3) is the commonest general term for snakes and other reptiles. Rarer terms are tannin (translated “snake” in Exod. 7:9, but more usually meaning a mythical “dragon”) and sarap (used, on its own or qualifying nakhash, of the fiery serpents in Num. 21:6, 8; Isa. 14:29; 30:6). In Greek, herpeton (Acts 10:12; 11:6; Rom. 1:23; James 3:7) includes snakes and lizards, while the generic word for snake is ophis (e.g., Matt. 7:10).

Besides these general terms, Scripture mentions the following: (1) the crocodile (liwyatan) found in Egypt and Israel and sometimes portrayed in poetry as a mythical monster (Job 3:8; 41:1; Pss. 74:14; 104:26; Isa. 27:1); (2) a variety of lizards, probably including geckos, skinks, and chameleons (Lev. 11:29, 30; Prov. 30:28); (3) a variety of poisonous snakes, including the cobra, or asp (Deut. 32:33; Rom. 3:13), and the viper, or adder (Isa. 59:5; Acts 28:3).

Although tortoises are common in the Middle East, the KJV translation of the Hebrew word tsab as “tortoise” in Lev. 11:29 almost certainly is wrong. However, since at least eighty kinds of reptile are found in Israel, precise identifications beyond this are difficult.

Reptiles in the Bible. The snake is an important image in Scripture. It is a snake that tempts Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:1; 2 Cor. 11:3), and in the first promise of salvation God says that the seed of woman will crush the snake’s head (Gen. 3:15). From that moment, the snake is condemned to crawl on its belly and eat dust (Gen. 3:14; Isa. 65:25).

All such crawling creatures were unclean in OT law (Lev. 11:29–31). Although some Middle Eastern snakes are nonpoisonous, the OT always portrays snakes as harmful as well as unclean (Deut. 8:15; 32:24, 33; Job 20:14, 16; Eccles. 10:8, 11; Isa. 30:6; Amos 5:19; Matt. 7:10; Luke 11:11). Because the venom was associated with the snake’s tongue, the snake was a symbol of treacherous, lying speech as well as of physical danger (Gen. 49:17; Pss. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; 51:34; Matt. 23:33; Rev. 9:19), shrewdness (Matt. 10:16), and degradation (Mic. 7:17). For snakes to be rendered harmless was a sign of divine intervention (Ps. 91:13) and of the messianic age (Isa. 11:8; Luke 10:19; Mark 16:18). Paul and John identify the snake in Eden with Satan and look forward to his total destruction in the last days (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9–17; 20:2–3).

Snakes feature three times in biblical miracles. First, Aaron’s rod was transformed into a serpent that, when Pharaoh’s magicians replicated the feat, devoured the magicians’ serpents (Exod. 7:10–15; cf. 4:3–4). This would have impressed Pharaoh all the more because the snake was a symbol of the pharaoh’s power. Second, when God sent poisonous snakes to punish the Israelites, who repented, God told Moses to set up a bronze snake on a pole; anyone who looked at the bronze snake (which only much later became an object of idolatry) was saved (Num. 21:6–9; 2 Kings 18:4). This prefigured the cross, on which Christ became a curse for us (John 3:14; 1 Cor. 10:9; Gal. 3:10). Third, Paul was bitten by a snake and suffered no harm (Acts 28:3–6).

The Bible does not have a generic term for the idea of color, but it does use various colors for descriptive and symbolic purposes, and it also refers to different coloring processes. Items can be described as “dyed” (Exod. 25:5), “multicolored” (Ezek. 27:24), or “speckled” (Gen. 30:32) to indicate changes or variety of color.

Certain colors are commonly used in the Bible (listed below), while others occur rarely (e.g., brown and yellow) or not at all (e.g., orange), reflecting the range of colors and dyes available in the ancient Near East. Colors are most often used for two purposes: to describe luxury items indicating wealth and power, and to describe the earthly and heavenly dwelling places of God. Ordinary people and places are not usually described in terms of the colors of their appearance. Exceptions to this include Esau (Gen. 25:25), David (1 Sam. 17:42), and the male lover in Song of Songs (5:10–11).

The following colors have particular significance or symbolic meaning in the Bible:

White. Used to describe the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13:3–4), white much more commonly has a positive association, being the color of purity (Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4) and glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14). Angels appear white (Matt. 28:3) or are dressed in white (Mark 16:2; Acts 1:10). The multitude of worshipers in heaven will wear white robes (Rev. 7:9), having been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Black. The female lover in the Song of Songs admires the raven black hair of her beloved (Song 5:11). However, black things usually have less positive connotations: storm clouds (1 Kings 18:45), diseased skin (Job 30:30), and the effects of the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:15). Blackness can also be a sign of judgment (Rev. 6:5, 12).

Red. Red is the color of the earth, the color of wine, and the color of blood. Red dyes could be made from crushed insects, plants, and minerals, giving a wide range of different shades (red, scarlet, and crimson are common in the Bible). Scarlet yarn and red-dyed animal skins were included in the offerings made for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:3–5). Red was used to symbolize sin (Isa. 1:18) and was also associated with warfare (Nah. 2:3; Rev. 6:4).

Blue. Blue tassels adorned every Hebrew garment as a reminder of God’s commandments (Num. 15:38). In the Persian court the royal colors were blue, white, and purple (Esther 1:6; 8:15), and blue garments were worn by the young Assyrian governors (Ezek. 23:6).

Purple. Purple dye was very expensive, so purple cloth was used as a sign of wealth (Prov. 31:22; Acts 16:14) and a sign of authority: the kings of Midian wore purple garments (Judg. 8:26); the wedding carriage of King Solomon was upholstered in purple (Song 3:10); the Babylonian king Belshazzar offered purple robes as a reward for service (Dan. 5:7). Purple robes were put on Jesus before his crucifixion in a mockery of his kingship (John 19:2–5).

Blue, purple, and scarlet were each separately associated with wealth and power, but when used together these three colors were the epitome of opulence and, as such, were associated with the divine presence. The tabernacle curtains were woven from blue, purple, and scarlet yarn (Exod. 26:1), as were the high-priestly garments (28:4–15, 33). The same colors were later used in the temple curtains (2 Chron. 3:14). Blue, purple, and red cloths were used for covering the Ark of the Covenant and its furnishings (Num. 4:6–12). Jeremiah describes idols adorned in blue and purple, an attempt to conceal their worthlessness (10:9).

Gray. Gray hair indicated old age and thus wisdom (Ps. 71:18; Prov. 16:31).

Green. Green is the color of plants and thus was associated with life-giving food and therefore God’s blessing. Green plants were given by God for food (Gen. 1:30), so their removal or destruction was a devastating judgment (Exod. 10:15; Ezek. 17:24; Rev. 8:7). People could be symbolized as green plants when they were fruitful and blessed (Ps. 92:14; Jer. 17:8) or when they were easily destroyed (2 Kings 19:26; Ps. 37:2).

NT textual criticism is the science of discerning the reading of the original Greek text of the NT. NT textual criticism is relatively different from the textual criticism of the Hebrew OT, since the two Testaments were copied in substantially different ways, resulting in quite different issues and types of copying problems.

Textual criticism is necessary for two reasons: (1) none of the original texts for any of the books of the NT (the autographs) have survived; (2) all the surviving copies that we do have differ from one another in at least minor ways. NT textual criticism is the discipline of examining all the readings found in the surviving copies (including other early translations and the writings of the church fathers) in order to discern the most-likely original text of the NT.

In many ways there is nothing surprising or unusual about this activity. This same discipline is used in the case of all ancient documents where the original no longer exists and there are multiple, but different, surviving copies. What sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of Plato, Aristotle, or any other extrabiblical author is the importance of Scripture. It is absolutely crucial that scholars be as accurate as possible in discerning the words of the Bible. Present-day doctrinal statements about the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture usually focus on how it is the actual documents written by the original authors of the Bible (the autographs) that were inspired and inerrant, and not necessarily each and every copy or translation that was ever made. At the same time, NT textual criticism provides strong and ample evidence that the standard translations of today are reasonable copies of the original texts and therefore are inspired and authoritative.

Another reality that sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of any other ancient document involves the large number of manuscripts containing all or parts of the NT. Aristotle’s writings (384–322 BC) have survived in only five ancient manuscripts, the earliest of which was last copied around AD 1100. Thus, the manuscript support for discerning the proper wording of Aristotle’s writings is five manuscripts, the earliest of which was copied some fourteen hundred years after its original composition. The NT, by contrast, has been preserved in almost 5,500 handwritten Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which may be only decades removed from the actual composition of the NT. In addition, there are tens of thousands of other manuscripts of the NT translated into other languages of the early church (especially Latin, Syriac, and Coptic) and perhaps something like a million quotations and allusions to the NT in the writings of the church fathers. The amount of manuscript support for the Bible is without parallel when compared with any other ancient writing, thus providing a firm foundation for the trustworthiness of the Bible.

New Testament Manuscripts

If all the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT from all the museums and ancient-book rooms around the world could be gathered together and examined, there would be a number of obvious differences. For one thing, these manuscripts are written on different materials. The oldest manuscripts include some 116 papyri written on papyrus sheets (made from the stems of a papyrus plant pressed together to make a flat writing surface) and date from as early as AD 125 until the eighth century. Virtually all the rest of the hand-copied manuscripts were written on parchment (leather from animal skins stretched thin) and range in date from the second century to as late as the sixteenth century.

Another significant difference involves the style of handwriting. Here there are two primary categories: uncials (majuscules) and minuscules. The three hundred or so uncial manuscripts were written using an early style of “capital letters” (comparable to hand-printing a text in all capital letters) and range in date from the second century to as late as the tenth or eleventh century, with the majority between the fourth and tenth centuries. The 2,800 or so minuscule manuscripts were written in a later style of semicursive using primarily “lowercase letters” (more comparable to cursive penmanship today) and range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries.

A third basic difference involves the arrangement of the material. In addition to standard biblical texts arranged in regular canonical order, almost half (about 2,200) of the manuscripts of the Greek NT are lectionaries composed of series of short passages designed to be read on a fixed regular schedule, almost like the responsive readings found in many modern hymnals. These range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries and cover the vast majority of the passages in the NT, and thus they constitute another significant source of information about the proper reading of the original text.

Other obvious differences in outward appearance involve the scope of the original work and how well it has been preserved. Only a small number of manuscripts were written to encompass the entire Bible, including the OT (usually the Greek translation called the “Septuagint”), the NT, and frequently various books of the Apocrypha as well. Other manuscripts were designed to include only the NT. However, the vast majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT originally included only a portion of the NT (due primarily to the cost in materials and labor), most often a collection of the four Gospels, or the Pauline Epistles, or some other smaller subset of the NT. Still another reality is that many ancient manuscripts may have lost pages or the binding may have broken, leaving only incomplete sections of the original manuscript. Some NT manuscripts have survived only in the form of torn fragments, sometimes only a portion of a page in size.

Different Readings

Different readings among these manuscripts fit into two broad categories: unintentional changes and deliberate corrections. Unintentional changes took place when a scribe was genuinely trying to make a good copy and due to simple human error failed to read a letter clearly, did not hear a word clearly (assuming that the text was being dictated aloud), inadvertently wrote a homonym instead of the right word, lost the proper place on the page, or mistakenly assumed that some marginal note on the page belonged in the text. Deliberate corrections were also a recognized part of the work of a scribe whereby a scribe tried to make a text read better or more clearly. Although some of the early church fathers warn of heretics making deliberate changes in the text for theological reasons (actual instances of this are hard to document), sincere Christians sometimes sought to improve the theological clarity or style of the text.

There are various estimates of the number of places where different manuscripts have different readings. If one is taking stock of any and all differences regardless of how minor, then there are more than ten thousand different places in the text that have textual problems. The Textus Receptus, or Majority Text (underlying the KJV translation), has some five to six thousand differences from the Greek texts underlying most other, more recent English translations, although most of these are minor differences in word order, spelling, and so forth and make no practical difference in content. The standard scholarly United Bible Societies Greek NT includes a discussion of something like 1,440 sets of variant readings that were deemed sufficiently significant for inclusion in the critical apparatus. A contemporary translation such as the NIV lists over a hundred specific instances of textual uncertainty in the NT of sufficient significance to provide a possible alternative translation.

Still another question involves the theological significance of these differences among the surviving manuscripts. Although this can be a potentially threatening topic, it should be noted at the beginning that no area of Christian doctrine stands or falls because of possible textual problems. The entire foundation of theology is firm and certain. Nevertheless, there are perhaps several dozen places where textual differences have definite implications for either doctrine or practice. For example, does 1 Tim. 3:16 help establish the deity of Christ by referring to Christ as “God” (KJV), or is “he” (most modern translations) the correct reading? Or when we quote the Lord’s Prayer, should we include the final words “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen” (from the KJV)? Or, for still another issue, is it proper to preach and teach from the resurrection stories in Mark 16:9–20 or the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11 (both of which are absent from early and reliable manuscripts)? English versions answer these questions differently.

However, a large number of textual problems are more minor in nature and involve little if any practical differences in application. For example, in 1 John 1:4 was John focusing on “your” joy or “our” joy? But by far the largest category involves textual differences that make no discernible differences at all in our English translations. Examples include differences in Greek word order, a choice between certain Greek tenses, similar grammatical constructions, the usage of synonyms, and some spelling differences. Differences in this final category are so minor that often they cannot be detected in English translations.

Different Families or Text Types

Another difference involves the “text type,” or family of manuscripts. Certain manuscripts with similar readings have a family resemblance with other similar manuscripts. The issue here involves patterns of copying errors among these manuscripts. In the late nineteenth century, two British scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, developed what they identified as the genealogical method for NT textual criticism. One component of this approach involves the recognition of at least three different “families” of related manuscripts presumably related to three different geographical areas of the early church: Byzantine or Syrian manuscripts (based in Syria or the later Byzantine Empire in Turkey), Alexandrian manuscripts (based in Egypt), and Western manuscripts (based more in Italy and North Africa). This classification system involves generalizations comparable to discerning a person’s nationality and ethnic background by various physical features. Some manuscripts are relatively easy to classify using this system, others are more difficult, and still others turn out to be quite mixed in nature. Yet there is a certain helpfulness to this system.

Certain conclusions can be drawn from this classification system. The vast majority of manuscripts (some 80 to 90 percent) are the Byzantine text type. These include virtually all the minuscules and lectionaries and tend to be relatively later in date. The remaining 10 to 20 percent of the manuscripts tend to be earlier and include the Alexandrian manuscripts, the handful of Western manuscripts, and a good number of early manuscripts that cannot be easily placed in either of these two categories. The Alexandrian readings tend to be briefer and more succinct in style, while the Western readings tend to be more unusual and eccentric, in contrast to the Byzantine ones, which tend to be more polished and harmonizing.

Applying Textual Criticism

There are different approaches to NT textual criticism. The two primary ones are (1) the King James/Majority Text approach associated with the KJV, and (2) the contemporary scholarly approach followed by virtually all other standard translations beginning with Westcott and Hort’s English Revised Version of 1881. Both approaches are built around an understanding of the history of the text. The Majority Text argument is built on the assumption that the original reading will have been preserved in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, in this case the relatively later Byzantine manuscripts. The contemporary scholarly approach assumes a so-called genealogical method whereby the Majority Text of the Byzantine manuscripts is believed to be the later “offspring” of the earlier Alexandrian and Western manuscripts and therefore more or less irrelevant for discovering the original text. Thus, this method essentially rejects the Byzantine manuscripts in favor of the earlier ones, especially the Alexandrian ones. Manuscripts are still counted and dated, but priority is given to the earlier manuscripts and to readings found in several different text types.

Textual Criticism, Old Testament–Centuries separate the earliest attested Hebrew manuscripts (MSS) and the canonical form of the biblical text. The transmission of the Hebrew Bible in many ancient and medieval sources reveals differences between the texts; consequently, textual criticism involves the comparison and analysis of those textual differences in both ancient sources and modern printed editions of the OT. Text critics collect from MSS and other textual witnesses all the details in which these texts differ from one another and then evaluate those differences to arrive at the most accurate original reading. Some of these differences were created in the course of textual transmission, while others are the result of scribal additions and the processes that created readings and texts over the centuries. In many cases, these differences are minimal and exert no significant theological or interpretational influence on the text itself.

Goals and Assumptions

The text critic seeks to recover the processes of the text’s written transmission so as to restore it not to the most ancient form or earliest literary strand of the biblical corpus, nor to the earliest attested textual form, but rather to the copy that contained the finished literary product and that stood at the beginning of the textual transmission process. Consequently, the text critic accepts the notion of a single, authentic text (Urtext) from which all extant MSS of a specific book have evolved rather than the existence of ancient parallel texts. Text critics identify and resolve textual errors in the text by revealing the history of their emergence, explaining how those errors or inconsistencies occurred. They consider and evaluate deviant or differing readings from the textual apparatus (notes written at the bottom of the printed critical versions) of the Masoretic Text (MT), such as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and R. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. Textual scholars remove or correct readings from extant or existing final forms of MSS and sometimes, in the absence of manuscript evidence, conjecturally emend or “suggest translational alternatives” for the text when the extant evidence defies a reasonable or clear reading. The most recent work by the Hebrew University Bible Project (HUBP) eliminates all scholarly conjectures proposed without manuscript evidence from its consideration in the text-critical process.

Discrepancies between textual witnesses to the OT include differences in book, chapter, and verse divisions, as well as layout and chapter sequence. The nature of scribal transmission assumes that although the scribes carefully copied the sacred texts, errors occasionally occurred. These textual corruptions may be unintentional, such as the reduplication of a letter or a word, confusion between letters that resemble one another, wrong word divisions, incorrect vocalization, or the accidental reversal of two letters. Occasionally a word may have been omitted, or words from marginal or interlinear comments (called a “gloss”) may have been inserted in the main text. In the case of intentional corruptions or alterations, scribes attempted to harmonize the morphology or grammar of a text, give explanations (also called “conflation”), incorporate material from parallel passages, substitute euphemistic words or phrases in place of offensive material, and, rarely, alter the texts theologically when the original wording seemed disrespectful to God.

Text Families and Translations

Some scholars theorize that the Hebrew MSS evolved from three local textual families arranged geographically, though more-recent scholarship seems to refute this view as simplistic. According to this theory, during the fifth century BC two local texts developed independently of each other in Babylon and Palestine. A third, the Alexandrian family, broke off from the Old Palestinian text and eventually served as the “source” or “model” for the translation of the Septuagint (LXX) between 250 BC and AD 150. The Samaritan Pentateuch resulted from the Palestinian family and, combined with the Babylonian tradition, formed the official corpus of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. The corpus of the Latter Prophets derived solely from the Palestinian text. This combination of texts formed the authoritative basis for the MT. The Leningrad Codex (AD 1009) is the oldest preserved complete Hebrew Bible, providing one of the best examples of the MT. The 1947 discovery of the Qumran scrolls gave text-critical scholars access to customary scribal activity and affirmed the existence of pluriform, or multiple, text types. These scrolls, transmitted during the third through first centuries BC, represented all the OT books except Esther and provided a Hebrew text witness that reinforced the relative veracity of the MT.

Ancient translations, such as the LXX, provided the source text from which the Old Greek, Lucian, Eusebius, and other Greek versions developed. In addition, the LXX formed the basis of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Syriac versions as well as the Targumim. The importance of the elementary text-critical principle “Texts do not count, they weigh,” which forms the basic assumption when evaluating textual witnesses and comparing potential readings, becomes clearer in light of these developments. For example, a text critic would consider a reading in a Qumran witness as the equivalent or superior to readings attested in the LXX and its offspring texts.

Weighing Variant Readings

A consideration of variant readings involves all Hebrew and reconstructed details that differ from an accepted form of the MT, including additions, subtractions, letter and word differentiation, differences in word division, vocalization (or pronunciation), and word sequence. Scholars denote the MT as the textus receptus, or “received text,” which forms the translation base then of the Hebrew Scriptures. In some cases, critics of the OT believe that the MSS and versions reflect varying stages or versions in the editing of a final text. For example, 2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18 are parallel texts in slightly different forms. Text critics acknowledge the existence of alternate forms of identical texts that were equally acceptable to the ancient poet by assuming that during the time of the OT, authors modernized or contemporized texts in an appropriate manner. One text does not have to be superior to the other; instead, both are legitimate, as in the case of Isa. 2:2–4 and Mic. 4:1–5.

OT text critics explore explanations for contradictory or different readings among text traditions, evaluate the weight of the textual evidence, and analyze a host of readings to determine which reading best explains the others or harmonizes with the literary evidence. In addition, text scholars ask whether a particular reading is grammatically acceptable and whether the word or phrase fits into the syntactic context of the sentence and the scope of the wider passage. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, text critics generally prefer the shorter reading because throughout history texts have a tendency to expand. In addition, when the MT and all other witnesses offer a text that is unobjectionable, makes sense, and has been preserved without a variant, scholars often assume that it is the “original text” preserved by the tradition and should be accepted. Furthermore, in the case of two alternative readings, if an explanation is available as to the manner in which one of these may have arisen from the other, then scholars consider the explicable reading as the weaker of the two.

The complexity of the text-critical enterprise, particularly when applied to the Hebrew Scriptures, requires a combination of intuition, skill, experience, careful attention to detail, and facility in cognate languages. The absence of extrabiblical Hebrew texts makes the OT textual analysis more difficult, since the scholar has a limited corpus of material from which to draw conclusions. OT text criticism is an ongoing process that will engage biblical scholars for years to come.

The father of the disciples James and John, he was a Galilean fisherman by trade (Mark 1:16–20; Matt. 4:18–22). Zebedee’s sons worked with him in the fishing business, and he seems to have possessed some wealth, as indicated by his ownership of a boat and the use of hired servants (Mark 1:20). His wife’s name appears to have been Salome (cf. Mark 15:40; 16:1; Matt. 27:56).