maryhelena

Who was the historical Jesus? In her interview with Discovery News, Rachel Havrelock has nothing new to offer. Just another version, another take-your-pick option, of a Jesus without his mythological clothes. Its as though Biblical scholars can’t get their heads around the fact that the naked Jesus they have created is reduced to wearing any second hand clothes that get thrown his way......

With Easter on the horizon perhaps its time to get real! Time to put back on Jesus of Nazareth his coat of many mythological colours - put him securely on the mantelpiece (or wherever.....) leave him there - and take a fresh look at the actual historical time frame with which he has been date stamped.

Looking Behind Jesus of Nazareth.

R. Joseph Hoffmann, on the introduction page to The Jesus Project webpage, says: “like all good history, the project is aiming at a probable reconstruction of the events that explain the beginning of Christianity—a man named Jesus from the province of Galilee whose life served as the basis for the beginning of a movement, or a sequence of events that led to the Jesus story being propagated throughout the Mediterranean. We find both conclusions worthy of contemplation,”.

With these words, The Jesus Project is acknowledging the fact that the mythological camp might have a point or two to bring to the table in a debate over the New Testament. No, not simply that mythology is part of the scene; that it is there in abundance - that stance has been active for a long time - its now a case of a learned body of academics facing the fact that NT mythology does have implications for the claimed historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

After all, what is left of Jesus of Nazareth once the mythology is removed? Have not theologians, academics and mythologists castrated him? No Incarnation, no Virgin Birth, no Miracles, no Bodily Resurrection. What is left is just a human man - with a take your pick version to boot. Wisdom Sage, Revolutionary, Prophet of Social Change, Man of the Spirit, Apocalyptic Prophet, Savior, Hellenistic Hero. One very complex man - or many men?

The Jesus Seminar, as quoted in Wikipedia, attributes just 15 authentic sayings to the gospel Jesus. Hardly sayings that would warrant a crucifixion. Imagine the uproar were someone condemned to death today for uttering these 15 platitudes/opinions - but of course that is just improbable - just as it would have been improbable back then. The sayings of the gospel Jesus are not what adds ‘salvation’ power to his story - it is his mythological clothes that do that.

Without his mythological clothes Jesus of Nazareth is naked - he is truly a nobody. A nobody upon which academics and other researchers can project their own ideas - resulting in a discipline that is now over stocked with versions of the presumed historical Jesus - but short on overreaching concepts that could narrow the field and produce some sort of consensus. What academics and theologians should have realized is that the normal man they see - once the mythological coating is removed - does not have, cannot have, the ‘body’ of Jesus of Nazareth.

Obviously, something went on, happened, 2000 years ago. We have the results around us in Christianity’s many forms. Somehow a new spirituality, a new awareness, began to take shape. To trace its roots requires not interpretations from the gospels but a disciplined consideration of the period’s history.

The claim that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical person cannot be verified. The claim that there is a historical core to the gospel Jesus story, that there was a man who was particularly relevant to the beginning of Christianity - that is another issue altogether.

The mythical position, that Jesus of Nazareth is not a historical person, is a position that is no longer on the fringe, especially now with The Jesus Project being prepared to consider everything that might contribute to its findings. However, the mythological camp is not without its own problems. When this camp seeks to view the NT mythology as only encompassing a cosmic Christ myth, the mythological camp comes up short. When the mythological camp seek to downplay the gospel Jesus as mere fiction - and thus of no real relevance - they undermine their own case. What the mythological camp chooses to ignore is the harsh reality that Jesus of Nazareth is time-stamped. A rear guard action perhaps - a move away from the perceived dangers of Paul’s cosmic Christ, back towards the physical reality of a ‘body’.

In wanting to emphasize a ‘body’ as opposed to, or alongside, Paul’s spiritual Christ, the gospels writers/compilers have used a particular historical time period in which to place their own theology/philosophy. Whatever were the popular stories doing the rounds, whatever the spiritual developments taking place - all of this, all the ideas, movements, people etc, were allowed to coalesce around a ‘body’ - a composite ‘body’ that the gospel writers/compilers sought to develop as a vehicle for their new spirituality.

The interesting question is: If Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person, why this specific time stamp? Any time stamp would, for their purpose, suffice. What was it within this specific time frame that so evidently caught their imagination?

Prophecy, Daniel in particular, played a part. But, by all Jewish accounts, no Messiah turned up. Perhaps a rethink was in order. Something that would allow for a different perspective on the Messiah. What became a prominent feature of the subsequent Jewish/Christian theology was that there would no longer be Jew or Greek - all are one in Christ. Something, or someone, within the gospel’s designated time frame, provided compelling reason for the gospel writers/compilers to think such thoughts.

Perhaps, after all, the Messiah did come - but was not seen or understood - because he was not recognized as being truly Jewish. Of itself the prospect of a half Jewish Messiah, or a non-Jewish Messiah, a ‘spiritual’ son of David, would not have been earth shattering - for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. Previously, Cyrus, God’s anointed one, had physically liberated the Jews from Babylon. Did the Messiah that was to liberate the Jewish people from their theological bondage to the Law turn out to be not wholly Jewish? A Messiah seeking not an earthly temple, nor a national restoration - but a spiritual temple, a new all encompassing spiritual comprehension.

The time-stamp within the gospels indicates that such a Messiah was perceived to have arrived. This man, in and of himself, has no salvation potential. The salvation potential is only what the gospel writers/compilers perceived - perceived as relevant to their developing spiritual re-awakening. The Messiah element, within the gospel myth, while prominent, giving the myth it’s ‘raison d'être’, is itself most probably not the whole mythological story.

The gospels tells us that Jesus was crucified around 33/34 AD (some few years after the start of his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius).The gospels tell us that his early disciples came from Bethsaida, that the question of his Messiah-ship arose in the villages of Caesarea Phillippi. With this date stamp its possible to look at history and find the death of a very prominent man. A man who had a historical connection to Bethsaida and Caesarea Phillippi. A man who left no offspring, dying childless. A man who, through his mother, was probably only half Jewish.
Josephus also provides the information that Philip built the city of Caesarea Philippi, and Julias, which was formally the village of Bethsaida. Philip married his niece Salome, (daughter of Herodias and great grand-daughter of the Hasmonean princess Mariamne, the daughter of the High Priest Simon) Salome, after the death of Philip, married another uncle and bore him 3 sons. (Ant.XV111,ch.11.par.1,ch.V par.4).
There is much to consider here. Perhaps the quote from Josephus should be viewed alongside this one:

A consideration of the life of Philip the Tetrarch, a consideration of his 37 years of peaceful, benevolent rule - in territory in which the gospel Jesus is said to have travelled and preached - might well provide a meeting place for both the historical Jesus and the myth camp.

Perhaps in Philip the Tetrarch the gospel writers/compilers saw something of the OT reign of Solomon: A young ruler, 18 years of age at the death of his father, who sought to rule wisely and peacefully and compassionately. A temple builder, a writer of proverbs and songs - a ruler of exceptional wisdom.

When preaching in Philip’s territory was the gospel Jesus a ‘Johnny-come-lately? Was there already in these areas a movement of sorts - a benevolent ruler (educated in Rome) who was travelling the countryside with his few chosen friends, endeavouring to hear his people’s cry for justice? Was this man, half Jewish through his mother, half Idumean through his father, able to provide, through his identity and his life story, a basis upon which the gospel writers/compilers could develop, and date, the beginnings of their new all embracing spirituality? And importantly, and primarily, allow them to uphold their determination not to minimize the importance of the ‘body’, the physical reality of their existence, in any spiritual endeavour.

The life of Philip the Tetrarch, either inadvertently or substantially, provided an impetus, a forward movement. In and of himself, Philip the Tetrarch, although of historical interest, has no ‘salvation’ potential. Only mythology, in this case the Jesus myth, in all its imagination and mysticism, can capture the spirituality of a people - and be the vehicle in which they perceive their ‘salvation’. It is the myth that has the power, the perception, to ‘save’ - not any particular man, or men, in its shadow.

A carpenter’s son or the son of a King? From our perspective today it matters little - and from the actual mechanics of myth making not a big deal either. However, for the time and place in which the Jesus mythology came about it did matter. A bloodline, a royal bloodline, as the gospels reflect, was seen as an important requirement for the Messiah. And, interestingly, the gospel writers, by placing the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem ( the burial place of Jacob’s wife Rachel) are indicating their awareness that the time had arrived when the “scepter” would depart from Judah - from the Davidic line - and rest upon “the one to who it belongs”. Joseph, the son of Rachel, the prince/viceroy in Egypt, being especially blessed by his father as the “prince among his brothers’.

On one level, the outer level, the Jesus mythology seeks to fulfil OT prophecy. On another level, a deeper level, it strives to reflect a far different perspective - the mystery of life itself - using the time honoured scenario of the dying and rising god in the crucifixion story.

Myths are simply attempts to explain things; things that are very often difficult to explain - like the origins, nature and the functioning of the physical world. They can also strive to capture man’s spiritual perceptions and his cultural and social development. Perhaps we don’t need myths today - perhaps we see clearly now. They are however a part of our intellectual history and we do ourselves a disservice were we to pass negative judgment on their value for their time and place.

It is only by putting the Jesus myth aside, looking at history without perceived ideas based upon some arbitrary interpretation of the gospel story - that a way forward can begin to appear. (needless to say, leave theology at the door....)The historical question is not about deconstructing Jesus, deconstructing the mythology - the issue is about putting the myth aside, looking around it, looking behind it - in order to comprehend its historical core.

The mythological camp and the historical Jesus camp need to find some common ground. Neither position, on its own, can answer the many questions regarding the gospel story. Time perhaps to give back to Jesus of Nazareth his mythological coat of many colours - and look anew at the historical time period that is date stamped upon the Jesus mythology.

aa5874

When you put the myth aside, there is no history to look at. Just assumptions.

The historicists cannot answer a single question.

If the Jesus of the NT was essentially a myth, then how can a historicist claim to know or find out when Jesus actually lived? What did Jesus actually preach? But, wait, was he preacher or just a carpenter or the carpenter's son?

Putting the myth aside, Jesus vanishes. He has no known history.
It is the evidence that is common.

Both sides have the same written information, these writings all confirm a belief that Jesus truly was a God that existed before the world began and was truly born without sexual union, transfigured, truly resurrected and ascended to heaven.

The evidence is common. It presents without doubt a myth.

The historicists wants to ignore the evidence that clearly shows that Jesus is a myth and assume that there is other evidence that is not common to anyone.

It is like removing or ignoring all the common information that depicts Achilles as a myth just to come to some other erroneous predetermined conclusion.

It is just absurd to ask a mythicist to put aside information that shows Jesus was a myth in order to accomodate another who has no evidence or information to support his flawed position.

maryhelena

I think you got the quote from my post and your reply mixed up here......its you saying "Putting the myth aside, Jesus vanishes. He has no known history". ..... <Subsequently fixed>

Off course there is history to look at - that is my major point! The Jesus myth is date stamped. All I'm doing is looking at the actual history that date stamp details.......Jesus does not 'vanish' when one puts the mythology aside to look at the actual date stamped history - I did suggest he gets put on the mantelpiece.... - to be taken down any time one wants to examine the mythology that is involved.

By doing that, by looking at the actual history - separately from the Jesus of Nazareth myth - one is able to work forward to the myth - instead of working backwards from the myth to any supposed 'historical' man.

Jesus of Nazareth is made to fulfill OT prophecy regarding Jewish history i.e. he is depicted as a prophetic fulfillment of that history. Hence, working from an interpretation of that history, from a prophetic interpretation of that history, working from the gospel story line, can only ever produce yet more interpretations of that history. Rather go to the root - the actual history - and try to grasp what it was within that history that lead to the formulation of the gospel mythological story line.

Such an approach in no way seeks to minimize the mythology - on the contrary, it seeks to highlight the gospel mythology - and from there would seek to understand what the mythology is trying to convey.

maryhelena

A footnote to my earlier post:

Dating the re-naming of Bethsaida to Julias has been somewhat controversial. Some biblical scholars have sought to uphold the idea of two Bethsaidas. They would also like to date the re-naming of Bethsaida to Julias at an early time period that would not have relevance for the gospel story. However, there is another point of view, and seemingly a more prevalent view - outlined in the following article that I found online. The later dating, 30 CE, is perhaps the more relevant one - that being the time of the death of Julia Augusta (wife of Augusta) to honour her at her death. If, as of now, the prevailing date for the re-naming of Bethsaida to Julias is 30 CE - this village/city - and Philips’s activities involving that city at a time when the gospel Jesus was gathering his disciples in that village/city - raises many questions for the historical beginnings of Christianity. Four years later, 34 CE, Philip was buried with; ‘great pomp’; at Julias/Bethsaida - as the gospel story line has Jesus, likewise, buried, in a rich man’s new memorial tomb.

Josephus making an error regarding the dating for the renaming of Bethsaida to Julius (or whoever writing under his name)? Or the gospel writers wanting to tell their story about a mythological man without giving too much away?? Obviously, if the gospel story line referred to Bethsaida as Julius, at the time when it portrays Jesus as visiting there, and his disciples as coming from there, their intent to create a purely mythological man would hit a rather hard obstacle....

Wikipedia gives a birth date for Philip the Tetrarch as 22/21 BC (dating given under his mother, Cleopatra of Jerusalem). That would make him around 56 years of age at his death in 34 CE. And what does Josephus give as his age when he publishes his work - 56 years of age - and after that Josephus (or whoever) calls it a day.....

Philip the Tetrarch was historical.......

aa5874

Well, lets put Matthew 1.18 aside.

Matthew 1:18 - Now, where is the history. We have nothing but questions and assumptions.

If Jesus was a myth, then he had no actual history. The very name Jesus of Nazareth cannot be assumed to have historical significance in the time zone allotted.

What you have ignored is that the Jesus story is combination of myth, fiction and what appears to be deliberate manipulation of historical records.

Even if the myth Jesus is placed aside, there is still the reality that the name Jesus of Nazareth actually had historical significance, not during the time of King Herod and Nero, but perhaps the name was only known for the first time during the time of Trajan.

Jesus as described in the NT and church writings is without question a myth. Ignoring that fact only leads to many unanswered questions.

bacht

I don't have a problem with the mythology of Christ as a heavenly saviour or some other mystical figure. But as you well know Christians trumpet their religion as being anchored in a specific place and time in human history (1st C Palestine). The past several centuries of academic study into the historical claims of the New Testament have not confirmed this idea, more the opposite.

The true history of Christianity may have been quite prosaic and disappointing (religious nuts inspiring institutional power-grabbers or somesuch)

maryhelena

Off course, Jesus of Nazareth is a myth. I've not posted anything that would suggest otherwise....

At what time the gospel story line became viewed as historical I'm not sure....but whenever it was, from that time, then yes indeed, Jesus of Nazareth became viewed as 'historical'.

Where is the history? I'm not looking into history for someone called Jesus of Nazareth!

I'm looking at the history of around the beginning of the first century - and taking things from there. In other words, I prefer to look for people that could have been involved with early Christianity - I am not attempting to discern, or interpret, what these early Christians actually believed. That is a big project on its own - and for my purpose at this time - of secondary concern. Hence, I'm putting the mythological Jesus on the mantelpiece, putting him, putting the ideas, the spirituality, the theology, on the shelve...

maryhelena

Whatever the early Christians discerned from their mythology is, naturally, of interest. However, I would imagine, that our modern day minds might well find that their ideas fall short! But the beauty of myth is that it can be re-interpreted anew - so who knows what could be read into, read from it, today?

Well, as to the early history of Christianity being disappointing - yes, if all that was there was a carpenter's son who was some sort of itinerant preacher who was crucified.....I somehow think Christianity had a far bigger kick start than that.....

Free Indeed

It's obvious that she doesn't believe Jesus is Messiah, King, savior and redeemer, so I quite reading.

Elijah

Are you a real Christian or are you just goofing off on here with a Christian alt?