Honoring the historical Jesus

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

We see that those kinds of claims get amplified by later sources, but seem mostly absent from earlier sources.

What are those earliest (hopefully contemporary sources); who wrote them, and what was the chain of custody to preserve that which was, at least by modern historical standards, most plain, pure and precious?

[Kevin Christensen]

Then there are approaches like this:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Publications/RisenLord.htm

 which suggests that the Jesus of History is the Christ of Faith.

Quote

In this book, Margaret Barker explores and explains apparent inconsistencies in the New Testament to present a new way of understanding Christian origins. She confronts and overturns much of the scepticism of recent scholarship.

She shows how the original understanding of resurrection may in fact be Jesus’ mystical experience at his baptism, when he was raised up and transformed into the divine Son, how the resurrection proof texts in the New Testament may be the ‘ascent texts’ of the royal high priesthood, and how Jesus may have seen himself as the anointed high priest, the Messiah, come to offer himself as the atonement sacrifice of the last days.

Margaret Barker therefore offers a new understanding of atonement drawn from Temple traditions, and shows for the first time how Christology and soteriology were necessarily related in the sacrifice of the Son of God. She contends that Jesus knew who he was and what he was doing - that the so-called Christ of faith was not the creation of the early churches but rather the figure Jesus believed himself to be. The Gnostic post-resurrection discourses are a memory of his private teaching to his disciples and their parousia hope derived from his teaching about the final Day of Atonement. With his death, Jesus would enter the heavenly sanctuary and then emerge again as did the high priest, to bring the Day of the Lord.

This work redraws the map of the New Testament and offers a new understanding of resurrection, Christology, atonement and parousia. The conclusion is that Jesus was indeed ‘the author and finisher of our faith.

The notion that there is a clear and objective picture that identifies a historical Jesus that is quite different than the Jesus of Faith, is, I think, undermined by this survey of the field:

Quote

I point you to Telford’s summary of how Jesus emerges as a social type if he is considered in
the light of ‘foreground data’ (the narrative tradition, especially the miracles, sayings and the
traditions surrounding his death) and ‘background data’ (the elements of general context
posited as appropriate to understanding him in his first century setting). Here, weighting is
all and what should strike us about this helpful taxonomy is the selective and constructed
character of the images of Jesus offered by historians, depending on their choice of emphasis,
what counts as primary data, which heuristic models are used, etc. Telford speaks of a
consensus today ‘that a combination of teacher, prophet, healer best captures historically his
social identity or role’ (Telford, p.55).
Foreground data
• If weight is given to the miracle tradition, then Jesus emerges as an ancient magician
(Morton Smith) or as a Jewish charismatic healer and exorcist (Vermes).
• If the weight is given to the sayings tradition, then a range of images of Jesus is adduced.
• If the wisdom sayings (proverbs, parables, aphorisms etc.) are given prominence, then
Jesus emerges as a sage (Vermes, Flusser) or even an itinerant subversive sage (Borg,
Robinson, Funk).
• If an emphasis on the authenticity of the prophetic and apocalyptic sayings is retained,
then Jesus emerges as an eschatological prophet (Meyer, Sanders, Charlesworth).
• If his Kingdom saying are interpreted apocalyptically (following Schweitzer), and linked
with the Son of Man sayings, then Jesus is an other-worldly figure, expecting cosmic
catastrophe and relatively indifferent to social concerns.

If the Kingdom sayings are not interpreted apocalyptically, and the Son of Man sayings
are viewed as secondary, then Jesus emerges as a this-worldly figure, a social prophet,
with a social programme (Borg, Horsley, Hollenbach).
• If the emphasis is placed on the opposition to him and his death at the hands of the
Romans, then Jesus emerges as a para-Zealot revolutionary (Brandon) or the pacifist
victim of oppression.
Background data
The choice of context in which to place Jesus affects the estimate given of him:
• When emphasis is placed on the Palestinian Jewish context and within that on the
Rabbinic tradition (although that did not flourish till after 70AD), then Jesus can be seen
as the inspired Rabbi (Flusser, Chilton) or the Pharisee (Falk).
• If the choice is made to place him in the context of apocalyptic Judaism, then he can be
seen as the ‘humane apocalyptist’ (Charlesworth) or the ‘reasonable visionary’ (Sanders).
• If his Galilean provenance is emphasised, then he becomes a charismatic holy man or
hasid in the same tradition as Honi the Circle-Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa (Vermes).
• If Hellenistic influences in Galilee are emphasised, then he can be seen as a Cynic teacher
(Mack, Crossan)
• If it is judged that he conforms to no particular social type, he cannot be placed in one of
these categories (Hengel)
The Jesus who is envisaged in these accounts is the pre-canonical Jesus, arrived at through
certain judgements about the nature of the Gospel traditions (both canonical and extracanonical
-- the Gospel of Thomas is now a controversial card in the game), and set in the
dynamics of the religious, social and economic life of Palestine. There is then a radical
dependence between the reconstructed Jesus and the reconstructed context/model: how the
context and social model are understood determines how Jesus is understood. ‘Determines’
is not too strong a word, for one of the problems with this approach is that the grid of social
and economic context is such a strong factor it can inhibit responsible handling of the actual
textual evidence we have for Jesus.

Quoted by John McDade in "Jesus in Recent Research" published in The Month, December 1998.

McDade also notes this, regarding Life of Jesus Research:

Quote

Wright, like Meyer, counters the tendency of some LJR to be minimalist about Jesus’
religious knowledge and experience. I can only applaud. LJR often seems fated to deal
badly with this area because of its sceptical assumptions, an over-reliance on the criterion of
dissimilarity between Jesus and the Church and its sometimes strong desire to distance the
‘real Jesus’ from Christological doctrine. It also often makes the assumption that early
Christology is ‘low’ and later christology is ‘high’, and therefore the Christological
categories closest to Jesus and perhaps deriving directly from him, are the ‘low’ end of the
Christological spectrum. Yet the earliest Christian writings, those of Paul, give no evidence
that the Christology of the 40s and 50s was ‘low’: quite the reverse, in fact. I sometimes
wonder if ‘early low Christology’ is not a fantasy of modern exegesis.

After comparing Crossan and Wright, McDade goes on to discuss The Risen Lord as a fresh and important approach, and quotes this from Barker:

Quote

If so, then, she says, ‘what Jesus believed about himself was identical which what the young
church preached about him, even though he had been imperfectly understood at times. It
makes Jesus himself the author and finisher of the faith, rather than the early communities, a
supposition which has been fashionable for some time. The great message of atonement was
not just a damage limitation exercise on the part of a traumatized group of disciples who
could find no other way of coming to terms with the death of their leader. The sources do
enable us to see how Jesus understood his own death, if only we listen to what they are
saying and do not sit in judgement upon them with preconceived notions of what could and
could not have been the case. The predictions of the Passion were made by Jesus himself,
even though the details may have been added later.’

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

seems odd to me to presume the historical Jesus is different than the real one

Pick any ancient religious, ethnic, or political hero and the myths that are told about that person today will be wildly different from the real person.  The whole concept of recording factual history by 21st century standards didn't exist back then.  Add to that the very human tendency to exaggerate, misinterpret, and to repurpose narratives for our own benefit and then pile hundreds/thousands of years of these incremental changes and presto chango you have a completely foreign narrative that has little to no resemblance to the original.  

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Pick any ancient religious, ethnic, or political hero and the myths that are told about that person today will be wildly different from the real person.  The whole concept of recording factual history by 21st century standards didn't exist back then.  Add to that the very human tendency to exaggerate, misinterpret, and to repurpose narratives for our own benefit and then pile hundreds/thousands of years of these incremental changes and presto chango you have a completely foreign narrative that has little to no resemblance to the original.  

It still doesn't.
Even recent historical figures are rarely described with any degree of complexity.  We like heroes and villains, and knee-jerk opinion swings are our favorites.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865689818/Salt-Lake-area-school-seeks-distance-from-its-controversial-namesake.html

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Pick any ancient religious, ethnic, or political hero and the myths that are told about that person today will be wildly different from the real person.  The whole concept of recording factual history by 21st century standards didn't exist back then.  Add to that the very human tendency to exaggerate, misinterpret, and to repurpose narratives for our own benefit and then pile hundreds/thousands of years of these incremental changes and presto chango you have a completely foreign narrative that has little to no resemblance to the original.  

Does this work if we take into consideration the 19th century interactions that people had with Christ?

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It still doesn't.
Even recent historical figures are rarely described with any degree of complexity.  We like heroes and villains, and knee-jerk opinion swings are our favorites.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865689818/Salt-Lake-area-school-seeks-distance-from-its-controversial-namesake.html

Well, even with 21st century standards its still a challenge to have accurate history.  

[thesometimesaint]

History tends to be written by the winners.

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Does this work if we take into consideration the 19th century interactions that people had with Christ?

The Christ of vision is a personal and subjective experience, not anything we can draw historical and factual claims from.  How would you even start to construct facts about the historical Jesus from visionary claims of individuals?  

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Pick any ancient religious, ethnic, or political hero and the myths that are told about that person today will be wildly different from the real person.  The whole concept of recording factual history by 21st century standards didn't exist back then.  Add to that the very human tendency to exaggerate, misinterpret, and to repurpose narratives for our own benefit and then pile hundreds/thousands of years of these incremental changes and presto chango you have a completely foreign narrative that has little to no resemblance to the original.  

The same could have been done to reduce Jesus' status ("trample under their feet the Holy One"), and it can be done rather quickly, too: "Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God."

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The same could have been done to reduce Jesus' status ("trample under their feet the Holy One"), and it can be done rather quickly, too: "Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God."

I mentioned that individuals change narratives for their own personal reasons and I think you could include nefarious motives for some of these changes, or at least some self serving motivations.  But it cuts both ways, as some may have exaggerated stories about Jesus for the purpose of elevating his status.  

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The Christ of vision is a personal and subjective experience, not anything we can draw historical and factual claims from.  How would you even start to construct facts about the historical Jesus from visionary claims of individuals?  

I'm not sure how you would do it, but I'm also not sure how you could leave it out, especially as a mormon.  

Is the point of finding the historical Jesus just trying to find out what they said about Him a few decades after His death?   Is that narrow window of information all that matters when it comes to discovering who Jesus really is? 

Does Historical Jesus cease to exist after 90 A.D.?  

 

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

All of our sources come after Jesus of course. Reconstructing the historical Jesus is based on a look at sources through the lens of higher criticism. For example, Mark is the first gospel, so we can take a look at the things Luke and Matthew copied from Mark, and what they changed, to see how Christian theology was evolving. We can take a look at the earlier "Q" source (the common material between Mat/Luke not copied from Mark), which didn't have a resurrection theology, but instead a kind of wisdom theology.

 

From a historical standpoint? The D&C dates from the 19th century. Most of the NT dates from the 1st century.

 

We see that those kinds of claims get amplified by later sources, but seem mostly absent from earlier sources. And of course the major theme in Mark is that the apostles had no idea that Jesus was really divine. So if Jesus was divine, he kept it totally to himself. That indicates that this idea came about only after he died.

 

Some of the methodological issues are summarized here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2m7I4WEoso

 

Thanks for your answers.  I haven't had a chance to really consider them, but I will and I'll respond at that time.  

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure how you would do it, but I'm also not sure how you could leave it out, especially as a mormon.  

Is the point of finding the historical Jesus just trying to find out what they said about Him a few decades after His death?   Is that narrow window of information all that matters when it comes to discovering who Jesus really is? 

Does Historical Jesus cease to exist after 90 A.D.?  

 

The historical Jesus didn't even exist (in mortality) in 90 C.E.  I think your idea isn't possible because whatever a modern person's conception of Jesus is already colored.  So any visions people have will be informed by their preconceived ideas.  

[thesometimesaint]

To be accurate the Higher Criticism of Christology would make Jesus the Christ merely Yeshua bar Yosef.

[Gray]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for your answers.  I haven't had a chance to really consider them, but I will and I'll respond at that time.  

Thanks bluebell. I'm not as attentive to this thread as I'd like because I've got a lot going on at work, and a family member in crisis. But I'll pop in to try to respond to things when I can

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

You are one step close to call Jesus that He was a mythical figure, which is my perspective also.

Jesus was a historical figure - there is broad consensus on that point. That doesn't mean everything written about him is accurate.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Gray

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The historical Jesus didn't even exist (in mortality) in 90 C.E.  I think your idea isn't possible because whatever a modern person's conception of Jesus is already colored.  So any visions people have will be informed by their preconceived ideas.  

There are no writings when Jesus did exit.  Even in a search for the historical Jesus, people must rely on writings from after His death.  

But, I don't know that it's accurate to claim that people's experiences with Jesus (such as those described in the D&C) can't be trusted because they are informed by their preconceived ideas.  I've had lots of preconceived ideas about people before I met them personally.  It wasn't hard to separate my ideas from reality.  I know of at least one scripture story where the prophet's expectations of who Jesus was was not in line with HIs experience of Him, and it seem to didn't hinder him in any way.

[Maidservant]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Maidservant, what do you think about the command to gather twice as much manna on the day before the Sabbath?  And what happened to those who both gathered too much or too little?  What is the implication of preparation when the Lord commands and relying on him to provide when he commands to do so?

I agree that could be one way to read it.  I guess one would have to decide if it meant literal Sabbath, or some other stand in, or if the point wasn't the Sabbath at all. 

I suppose that could be personal for what a person needs to learn for their personal life.  Also perhaps the oil in the lamp parable, in which they had extra.  There is also the woman in Proverbs who was productive, and I get the sense a manager of much material goods; likely including what was stored.

But there is manna, the lilies of the field (only store treasures in heaven), the cruse of oil, pay the laborer for his day (in the D & C), the parable of the talents.  Which all warn against keeping things.  AND there is my personal experience on a day in and day out basis which I have relied on manna constantly.  Others will likely have stories where they were blessed by their savings or storage.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I agree that could be one way to read it.  I guess one would have to decide if it meant literal Sabbath, or some other stand in, or if the point wasn't the Sabbath at all. 

I suppose that could be personal for what a person needs to learn for their personal life.  Also perhaps the oil in the lamp parable, in which they had extra.  There is also the woman in Proverbs who was productive, and I get the sense a manager of much material goods; likely including what was stored.

But there is manna, the lilies of the field (only store treasures in heaven), the cruse of oil, pay the laborer for his day (in the D & C), the parable of the talents.  Which all warn against keeping things.  AND there is my personal experience on a day in and day out basis which I have relied on manna constantly.  Others will likely have stories where they were blessed by their savings or storage.

I know of a number of people who have been able to help those in need out of their storage, so someone's manna was another's keeping of material things...until it was time to let them go.

It seems to me in this day and age where very few go out to hunt or garden the majority of their food, where shelter rarely means finding it anew every day, that someone somewhere must be preparing ahead of time in order to provide our needs.  I am not sure how we can describe any life as one living from day to day.  And if we don't keep clothing for the winter, etc. then we are wasting resources by having to buy the same thing over and over again.  A car may be wise if riding a bus or calling a cab or imposing on friends is too great a cost.  (I have known a few people who acted as if they were living on faith alone, on a modern manna but what they were doing was taking advantage of others to care for them.)

Because the Church keeps things they are able to help those in need.  Joseph of Egypt with the 7 years of fat and famine....I think the important thing is to listen to what the Spirit is telling you in the here and now.

At times it will be accepting manna that strengthens faiths, others it will be storing for 7 years when it appears there is no need.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are no writings when Jesus did exit.  Even in a search for the historical Jesus, people must rely on writings from after His death.  

But, I don't know that it's accurate to claim that people's experiences with Jesus (such as those described in the D&C) can't be trusted because they are informed by their preconceived ideas.  I've had lots of preconceived ideas about people before I met them personally.  It wasn't hard to separate my ideas from reality.  I know of at least one scripture story where the prophet's expectations of who Jesus was was not in line with HIs experience of Him, and it seem to didn't hinder him in any way.

But that's the thing, they aren't seeing the mortal human Jesus, they are seeing a representation of Christ in their mind's eye.  So it's being interpreted and filtered through their impressions of what Jesus is.  I imagine someone from Africa having a vision of Jesus would see a very different Jesus than a white man in 19th century America.  Which vision of Jesus more closely represents the historical Jesus? 

[Maidservant]

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Hi, Maidservant. I am going to try responding to a couple of things, but I am not sure what you mean by this.

I think you have hit an important point here, but I don't really understand your concern. Are we not to teach of the "second coming?" What specific scriptures are you speaking of, and what do you understand Yeshua is trying to teach differently than the apostles were asking?

As for Paul - try comparing that to D&C 88:93-8. While you may not hear that taught, it is certainly in the restoration scriptures.

I don't really see any importance to this difference. In Yeshua's day there were no refrigerators, and your usual choices for safe drink was fresh spring water, beer or wine. I imagine they had other fresh beverages, but they had to be fresh. Today we don't have that problem - we can keep grape juice in the fridge up to 2 weeks, milk, and all other kinds of beverages. Today, our society lacks a lot of restraint, and the Bible does not speak well of drunkenness.

I believe Hebrews is well presented in the restored gospel. You just don't hear much about it. But it teaches what the oracles are. Hebrews teaches about the begotten nature of Yeshua. This is a key point, so I don't think you can say that it doesn't teach of Jesus. Esp refer to chap 1 and Chap 5.

I think you are right that Yeshua didn't teach it directly to the crowds, but He did teach it in parable form. These He expounded to His disciples and then intonated that the mysteries of the kingdom were not given to the Jews as a whole yet.

I have to echo Bobbie that Jesus and Christ are not the same word. Jesus is really a made up word since the Aramaic had no hard J sound. But the same with Joshua. The best transliteration appears to be Yahoshua. The name was shortened after the Jews adopted the Aramaic to Yeshua, but still meant YHWH saves. Perhaps what you were thinking is that Christ is the same as the Hebrew Messiach? Christ is the English version of the Greek Christos. All these mean "annointed." There were prior Messiachs in the OT - one was Cyrus the Great. Yahoshua was a name and Christ is a title, and they do have different meanings.

Master was the same as Lord. The Greek NT eschews the use of YHWH - probably because of the Jews superstition about the name at the time. So we get Master and common lord instead. However, the Peshitta NT does use the Syriac equivalent to YHWH of "Marya" with respect to Yeshua.

I don't think there are as many as you seem to believe, but I think the D&C are replete with references to the NT. It saddens me that other churches get the idea that the Church somehow discounts the NT. I think the Book of Mormon makes it clear that the record of the apostles given us is a keystone.

 Thanks for what you say.  I'll continue studying, of course.  I'm really not interested in maintaining a position versus others because--I don't have a position.  I'm studying.

First I think I was unclear about Hebrews.  Hebrews has to be my favorite book in the New Testament.   It teaches about Christ--not only a person in Jesus (although it does say that as well) but what CHRIST is.  And it is IN Hebrews (rather than the Gospels) that we get a very complete idea of atonement (someone's anyway).  And it is deeper than at first glance, as it teaches us all what to do now, not just what Jesus did once.  That's what I think is misunderstood in it.  Also when I said 'nothing about Jesus' I guess I was thinking it didn't really discuss or make a connection to the Gospel's and the life of Jesus.  Which is okay, the book has a very specific purpose.

Both in the New Testament and in D & C the telestial-terrestrial-celestial are used as likenesses to help us understand, rather than places to go.  The kind of people we are meant to be--the fullness of what the Father hath.

I know that D & C revives the end days themes; I'm saying that Paul wasn't imagining 2000 years later.  That the D & C brings it up again would in my mind at this time be unwarranted due to the ideas presented in the New Testament that (seem to) require a closer time frame.  Actually the church doesn't get very doomsday; we have been asked to be prepared but positive.  I love that.

This is the Greek Interlinear Bible I use:  Greek Interlinear Bible.  My own observation is based on the word choices this interlinear chose to make.  Although it is seems to me they are different words, I don't know Greek independently, so maybe they really are synonyms or possibly tenses or speech parts of the same word; or if there is a purpose and substantive difference in the words/ideas used, as I am observing.  The words are, in Matthew 24 verse 3, the disciples are asking about the "conclusion of the aeon"/"end of the world" (sunteleias).  And in verse 6 Jesus replies by saying the "consummation" (telos), in English "end".

Edited September 29, 2017 by Maidservant

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But that's the thing, they aren't seeing the mortal human Jesus, they are seeing a representation of Christ in their mind's eye. 

They may not be seeing the mortal human Jesus, but that doesn't mean that they are seeing a representation Christ in their mind's eye.  Besides that though, why are we assuming that being able to see the mortal human Jesus is the only way to truly know who Jesus is?  

Quote

I imagine someone from Africa having a vision of Jesus would see a very different Jesus than a white man in 19th century America.

Why?  You keep saying this stuff like it's a given, but i'm not sure why i should assume that it is.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

They may not be seeing the mortal human Jesus, but that doesn't mean that they are seeing a representation Christ in their mind's eye.  Besides that though, why are we assuming that being able to see the mortal human Jesus is the only way to truly know who Jesus is?  

Why?  You keep saying this stuff like it's a given, but i'm not sure why i should assume that it is.  

Until an outside observer can objectively measure and record some else's visionary experience, why would we assume anything other than these experiences are subjective and contextual to the person experiencing them.  

Also, certainly you can understand how the many different cultures of the world would have different visions of Jesus.  Did Joseph Smith see a Caucasian Western European looking Jesus or a more historically accurate Hebrew looking person?  How do you think other cultures and races envision Jesus?  

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Until an outside observer can objectively measure and record some else's visionary experience, why would we assume anything other than these experiences are subjective and contextual to the person experiencing them.  

Also, certainly you can understand how the many different cultures of the world would have different visions of Jesus.  Did Joseph Smith see a Caucasian Western European looking Jesus or a more historically accurate Hebrew looking person?  How do you think other cultures and races envision Jesus?  

JS saw a resurrected and perfected being and that's how he describes Him.  

But to your first question, isn't it weird, in a religious discussion, to say that unless something can be objectively measured and recorded, we should assume it's only true for the person experiencing it?

 

[hope_for_things]

On 9/30/2017 at 12:33 PM, bluebell said:

JS saw a resurrected and perfected being and that's how he describes Him.  

But to your first question, isn't it weird, in a religious discussion, to say that unless something can be objectively measured and recorded, we should assume it's only true for the person experiencing it?

But, how do you compare the Jesus Joseph saw to the Jesus an African or Chinese person see's?  

Also, I didn't say there aren't truths that can apply to others besides the person experiencing the vision.  Many religious traditions have formed out of visionary experiences.  These truths don't tell us facts about historical events, but they often express meaningful truths about important elements of life and relationship with the divine.