What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed (page 5)

Narkissos

lovelylil,

To answer your personal question I would rather call myself a post-christian (if a label is needed). Which admittedly can be construed as "apostate"

Perhaps I should have replied differently:

Personally I feel Jesus was historical for obvious reasons (my faith rests on it)

What I actually fail to see is the obviousness. Sure, to many Christians faith implies believing in a historical Jesus who is the Christ of faith. But other Christians, allowing for the development of doctrine and stories, consider such an equation impossible -- their faith is not based on history. So the relationship of "faith" and "history" cannot be taken for granted.

peacefulpete

Epistula Apostolorum just so you know what I was referring to.

Though I fear you missed the point of the comment lovelylil. Anyway its fun.

lovelylil

Narkisso,

You make a good point.

Pete,

I don't see how I missed your point. You said "Cephas was mentioned in John 1:40-42 but Simon Peter was never again called Cephas". That is why I posted the other texts that mention the name Cephas where it is clear in the context that it means Peter. And that he is the one also known as Simon Peter that Jesus was addressing. did you look up and read all those verses in their context or did you just go by the information in the books you cited that had the theory about Cephas and Peter being two seperate people?

About your statement there a "suspected interpolation" of Galations 2, and 1 Corinthians 15 - note the word you - yourself used "suspected"

I fear you may have missed the point of this thread. You are doing exactly what the book yadda recomended says that most people do when looking at the bible. But anyway - it was fun. Lilly

Midget-Sasquatch

Squeezing Jesus between John the Baptist and James, two figures of some historical consistency, seems to have been one big worry of early Christian tradition.

A potent observation. Were the other two so much more persuasive than the Gospel Jesus that the proto-orthodox felt they needed to downplay them? Or were people just more drawn to real living people? The evidence/lack of it strongly supports the mythical Jesus camp.

But I'm also waiting to read more new material by Robert Eiseman. He wrote a book on James the Just and proposed he was actually the blood brother of an historical Jesus. He covered some of the points you mentioned about James. Like having more than one mentioned in Acts and the Gospels and how the developing orthodoxy may have employed that tactic in trying to obfuscate inconvenient history. Eiseman reasons that Jesus was likely a Nazerene like James. Now that kind of Jesus I can see causing a commotion in the Jerusalem temple, and being killed for it. I wonder if I find this proposal intriguing because some small part of me would like to have some tangible link to an historical Jesus.

Lilly,

If you believe that the crucifixion of Jesus was necessary as a dispensation, then I can see how your faith would need that part to be historical. But being less orthodox, if one doesn't require the dispensation, then there's still a whole lot to be learnt from parables. I'm persuaded to side with the gospels being myth. I feel that at their core, like myths in general, they're trying to convey a perceived reality or some truth about the human experience. I'll paraphrase what Narkissos wrote, the key message being:"God was and is among us". Being agnostic, I don't think I can say whether that belief is sound or baseless. But I can tell you this much for sure: I'd rather the Gospel Jesus be real than the Jehovah of the Watchtower.

peacefulpete

Robert Eiseman's research on James demonstrates the point we are making here, the names and characters of the NT have shifted with time and politics. The foremost weaknesses in Eiseman's book is his assumption of an historical Jesus as central to the birth of the movement and his entertaining the idea that the Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran was James. This requires ignoring the Radiocarbon dating. He illuminates many dark corners of the past or at least lets us see that a lot is missing.

What's a teaser is that according to Eusebius:

History of the Church 4:5:3
The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived. But I have learned this much from writings...The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchaeus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.

Note that Eusebius doesn't think much of the moniker "brother of the Lord" (a simple religious titile interpreted by later literalizers as fleshly relationship) and that the leader to replace him is Symeon aka Simon. Is this the historical Simon ??

peacefulpete

BTW Eiseman also identifies Peter and Cephus as separate characters.

lovelylil

MS,

Thanks for your input. I totally agree that I would also rather Jesus be historical than the Jehovah God that the WT portrays.

PP,

Thanks for that book reference. I never thought there were so many theories about the bible. It can really be overwelming to see all the opinions. I'm sure I can find another book or two with a different opinion. When I read the bible itself, it is clear to me that Cephas is the Apostle Peter. I understand that minor changes have been made over the years but I feel the essential message of the gospels is the same. But thanks for all your hard work and giving those references. Lilly

peacefulpete

hmike, here's a summery article of stances on the Paulines: http://www.hermann-detering.de/evolution_of_the_pauline_canon.htm

hmike

Pete,

Thanks for the response. I will check the references I can get and maybe revive this thread if I have any more questions or comments.

For now, I see you quoted Eusebius. Why would the information attributed to Eusebius (notice I said attributed to) be considered more accurate than another, say from the book of Acts?

You mentioned the different accounts of the deaths of the disciples. Which accounts could be considered the most accurate? And why? Or can any of the accounts be considered credible? Wouldn't all positions based on historical accounts contained in ancient documents--both those for and against--under a cloud of suspicion?

What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed

Share this