Historical Jesus versus Christ: Relevant to Ripperologists?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Barnaby,

From what I have read there is no contemporary evidence of a historical Jesus. The reference in Josephus only appears in editions of his work produced after Christianity was established as the official religion of Rome. And that aside, we have only the New Testament to go on.

I find this subject even more fascinating than JTR. Thanks for opening the debate. I hope it can be discussed rationally.

MrB

I agree with you that the reference to Jesus by Josephus in the Slavonic Version is of doubtful historicity, but we know that there was a
real historical Jesus because of what Professor SGF Brandon called the scandal of the Roman cross.

The author of the first canonical gospel, Mark's gospel, had to explain it away, and Tacitus was well aware of it, noting that
Jesus had been executed by order of Pontius Pilate.

The fact that Mark had to transfer responsibility from Pilate to the High Priest shows he had some explaining away to do.

Enoch Powell argued that Jesus was stoned to death, not crucified, but he missed the elementary point that if that had happened, Mark
would have gladly reported it, in order to acquit the Romans of all responsibility and blame the Jews completely.

But he couldn't - because the crucifixion was referred to dozens of times by Paul in his writings and too far embedded in the Christian tradition.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm posting this here because I don't want to introduce a religion-related topic on the main boards, even though I do not intend for this to be controversial or challenge one's religious beliefs.

After reading several books on the historical Jesus, and the arguable disconnect between this person and his portrayal in the New Testament, I've been struck by how many persons of Christian faith acknowledge this and simply do not care. To some believers, it is almost like there are two persons: the historical Jesus and the Christ that Christianity is built around. To those, their God is the Christ and any differences between this God and the historical Jesus could be chalked up to Christ choosing to take the form of a man and live in those times, etc. I don't want to delve too far into religion here; I simply want to make the point that this disconnect between the historical figure and the God does not bother some.

How many of us are like this when it comes to the Whitechapel Murders? I would guess that the majority of us became interested in this case because of the sinister portrayal of "Jack the Ripper", the sensationalism associated with the crimes, and the great Victorian mystery/drama. Of course, we all have our favorite suspects, but if it were to suddenly be revealed that "Jack the Ripper" was some poor otherwise uninteresting schlub who didn't even kill all of the canonicals, how many of us would be disappointed (after the thrill of the reveal, of course), and how many of us would carry on with similar enthusiasm? Are we more interested in the history of the man and his victims or the history resulting from his portrayal in culture? I don't think that there is a right answer, by the way, both are legitimate areas of study. But in this case I personally would tend to be more interested in the Gestalt of Jack the Ripper, as I believe this has been far more influential than the criminal.

The New Testament Gospels are only loosely based on historical happenings.

A myth grew around the life of Jesus of Nazareth and, as you are doubtless aware, Paul transformed him into a mythical, semi-divine figure.

Something similar has happened with the Whitechapel Murderer, because, unfortunately, that is the way people's minds work.

It may be that his later victims did not suspect him because he didn't wear a black cape and didn't carry a Gladstone bag.