The Historical Jesus and the Temple

Historical Jesus studies have no shortage of treatments that seek to recover the person, teachings, and actions of Jesus of Nazareth. Yet amid the noise, Michael Patrick Barber provides a sharp, revitalized approach to this conversation in his book The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology, and the Gospel of Matthew. Barber’s research on the Gospel of Matthew is not only illuminating but fresh in its methodology and contribution to the broader discussion. He makes it a point that he will not seek to prove or disprove pieces of Matthean tradition; rather, it is the shaping and presentation of Matthew’s Gospel that speaks to how scholars should understand the relationship between Jesus and the temple (2). Noting the anti-temple biases often present in scholarship (3), Barber sets out to unearth several premises and trends within scholarship and historical Jesus research while explicating the Jewish nature of Matthew’s Gospel.

This foundation holds firm, for Barber demonstrates throughout his work that Matthew’s shaping of tradition consists in preserving historical memories, as opposed to conceding that the Jesus community has refashioned them. This has implications for what Matthew’s Gospel contributes to the broader discussion of Jesus’ relationship to the temple, and Barber seeks to demonstrate two contentions in his work (18-19): (1) the evidence strongly suggests that Jesus did not repudiate the temple’s validity but instead “affirmed the temple’s legitimacy and participated in its cultic life” (234); and (2) Matthew’s presentation of the material provides more benefit to historical Jesus studies than formerly understood.

Early on, Barber goes to great lengths to demarcate typical processes within historical Jesus research from his own approach. After critiquing common criteria (22-25), Barber weaves in the importance of social memory theory for historical studies and underscores the reality that memories are, to some extent, always interpretive (29, 234). He maintains that “the criteria are not merely inadequate because they fail to produce ‘certainty.’ Their use is unconvincing because they depend on a conviction that the researcher can ultimately reach an uninterpreted Jesus who can be found by separating ‘fact’ from interpretation” (30). This is an important point for Barber, for he notes repeatedly that while certainty is unattainable, given alternatives, his contentions are the most probable (e.g., 32-34, 51, 129, 236). Barber’s methodology proceeds as a “triple context approach” that considers the recurrent attestation of a motif, how said theme would correspond within ancient Judaism, and its “relationship to the effects of Jesus” (35). Preempting potential criticisms, Barber contends that he is not proposing new “criteria,” but rather that his study “seeks converging lines of evidence” (39). Barber diligently follows his stated methodological approach throughout each chapter as he seeks to accomplish his aims.

Accordingly, Barber’s structure is incredibly clear. This is largely due to his repetition of main ideas and helpful signposting without being redundant or tiresome. Throughout the book, Barber does not sacrifice clarity for rigorous analysis of the research or substantial argumentation for crisp communication. Each piece of his reasoning is researched and well argued, which come together nicely by the end of the chapters, where he explores their pertinence for historical Jesus studies. Thus, the chapter conclusions are intricately well reasoned.

The chapters explicitly build on one another (18), and this progression is largely discernable. In chapter 3, Barber investigates Jesus’ affirmation of the temple and its practices. Barber then elaborates on the likelihood that Jesus anticipated the temple’s destruction. He contends that this does not mean Jesus repudiated the temple; rather, Jesus claimed he would rebuild the temple as a part of the anticipated eschatological restoration. Barber develops this further in chapter 5, demonstrating that Jesus’ self-conceptions aligned with his teaching concerning the temple, which is consistent with Davidic traditions. The contentions of each chapter naturally follow up until this point. However, the contents of chapter 6, concerning the temple-community, are not as firmly established as the former chapters. It is not until chapter 7, which integrates temple traditions from other sources, that the place and purpose of chapter 6 become clear. This is not to say that chapter 6 is completely out of place, but it lacks the same level of precision of placement and purpose as the previous chapters. Overall, chapters 2-5 and 6-7 could have used more direct connection to keep them tightly tied to the Matthean portrait of Jesus and his concern with the temple.

One of Barber’s strongest points is his efficient engagement with a tremendous amount of material—both primary and secondary sources—without becoming burdensome in his prose. The flow remains steady in each chapter, and the argument remains coherent throughout his work. Barber makes great use of primary sources, especially Second Temple Jewish literature. This literature is diverse, containing various groups, thoughts, and writings, and Barber captures this reality well (e.g., 87-92, 127-129, 165-168). Barber’s secondary sources are also well-documented. He not only substantiates his own points well with excellent scholarship, but he also heads off potential dissensions. Barber gives dissenting positions necessary attention without derailing his main arguments, maintaining clarity alongside meticulous research

Barber is successful at working through the evidence to demonstrate Jesus’ acceptance of the temple and Matthew’s relevance for historical Jesus studies. Barber’s conclusion includes a succinct summary of each major point he makes throughout the book. There is no shortage of studies concerned with the Jesus of history; yet even among the abundance of work in this area, Barber stands out as a clear voice with a distinct perspective that scholarship cannot ignore or set aside. The work within The Historical Jesus and the Temple deserves thoughtful engagement alongside further development and application to other Gospel accounts and areas of the discipline.

Amber M. Dillon is an adjunct professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary.

Amber Dillon

Date Of Review:

September 10, 2024