Historical Jesus versus Christ: Relevant to Ripperologists?

[Barnaby]

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.

[ChrisGeorge]

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.

Hi Barnaby

Interesting topic. I am interested in all historical mysteries and controversies, although I am not religious. Nonetheless because religion is a part of history it interests me as an area for study for that reason.

It sounds as if you are saying the real life Jesus had feet of clay or was not the perfect individual we might expect him to be.

Many might say that the fact that this contradiction does not worry some might conceivably be put down to the hypocrisy that traditionally characterizes those of a religious bent.

Best regards

Chris

[MrBarnett]

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

[Scott Nelson]

What about the Nag Hammadi texts?

[MrBarnett]

Scott,

As far as I am aware they are not contemporaneous with the supposed historical Jesus.

MrB

[Scott Nelson]

Well, I'll just have to wait and see what St. Sophia has to say about it then.

[Damaso Marte]

I'm a committed atheist, but there's very little reason to suppose that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure. The only way to get to "no historical Jesus" is to adopt much higher standards for accepting the existence of a historical figure for Jesus as opposed to accepting other historical figures.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Damaso,

Are you suggesting that we should question the existence of Queen Victoria or Abraham Lincoln?

If not, why?

MrB

[jason_c]

Hi Barnaby

Interesting topic. I am interested in all historical mysteries and controversies, although I am not religious. Nonetheless because religion is a part of history it interests me as an area for study for that reason.

It sounds as if you are saying the real life Jesus had feet of clay or was not the perfect individual we might expect him to be.

Many might say that the fact that this contradiction does not worry some might conceivably be put down to the hypocrisy that traditionally characterizes those of a religious bent.

Best regards

Chris

If we are talking about history then I dont think such "hypocrisy" it is limited to those of a religious bent. What we know of just about all historical figures is that they rarely measure up to their subsequent reputation once their lives are fully investigated - Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson, Ghandi, Churchill and many others. Many of whom are lionized today.

If I were to guess at the reason for Christians not to be bothered by the disonnect between the historical and religious Jesus it would be the Resurrection. The Resurrection is a convenient way for Christians to wipe the slate clean when it comes to his story. Jesus without the Resurrection is a minor religious prophet; Jesus with the Resurrection is of a different magnitude altogether.

[MrBarnett]

Are we Ripperologists or not?

What is the source material for an historical Jesus?

Please let us apply the same standards to this question as we would to, say, the credibility of PC Long's inquest testimony.

I think this is what Barnaby had in mind when he started this thread.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Are we Ripperologists or not?

What is the source material for an historical Jesus?

Please let us apply the same standards to this question as we would to, say, the credibility of PC Long's inquest testimony.

I think this is what Barnaby had in mind when he started this thread.

MrB

[Jonathan H]

There are no primary sources about Jesus of Nazareth.

Assuming that the brief menton in Flavius Josephus is a crude, Christinan forgery--I certainly do--then we here have a very well informed historian nearto that era, a Romanized Hebrew, who does mention Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, John the Baptist, Herod the Great, the Zealots -- and yet not Jesus of Nazareth (hence the need, in the 4th Century, for the fraudulent insertion).

Historical arguments can be made that behind 'Jesus Christ' is Jesus Ben Ananias and/or Apollonius of Tyana and/or Paul the Apostle (in the sense that he was exclusively preaching an other-worldly Christ, the flesh-and-blood man was only added decades afterwards by St. Mark).

[Damaso Marte]

A quick search of Wikipedia reveals this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_Historicity_of_Jesus

It appears there are two references to Jesus in Josephus, and one in Tacitus. Of the two references in Josephus, one of them is less disputed than the other, and some scholars who think the more dubious Josephus mention is a Christian interpolation believe that there was something there originally about Jesus that was changed.

I think its also a fact that the scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus is that he existed. This has been debated hotly since the early 19th century and debate seems to have settled on Jesus in fact being a historical person.

[Jonathan H]

I repeat, there are no primary sources on Jesus of Nazareth.

Josephus does not mention him, or his brother. They are both crude, Christian forgeries of a much later date.

The modern attempt to retrieve some of the Testimonium Flavianum as original to the historian is pretty close to pathetic.

The Tacitus reference may be real (I don't think so, as it was found only a few hundred years ago) but all it does is record what Christians believed, not necessarily an historical figure who was just like what they believed.

There is 'Christ' and there is the historical figure (or figures) who lie behind that deity who emerged in the 2nd century A.D.. The distance between the two is a matter of debate.

[Barnaby]

My take-away is that most historical scholars on the topic of the historical Jesus accept that such a person existed. Admittedly, there is scant evidence. Scholars point to the (we can't find it but it logically must have existed) source material for Mark and Matthew (termed Q). Additional evidence is based on inference. Some things that the Jesus of the Bible did simply would not make much sense if a group were starting a religion based on him being the Jewish Messiah. Off the top of my head one such thing is his antics at the Temple. Since there would be little reason to make this up, this is held as better evidence that this event actually occurred then say, raising someone from the dead. But in fairness, lots of people were raising people from the dead back then. They must know something that we do not.

Are we Ripperologists or not? I guess that depends on what that means. Are we after historical accuracy of the man Jack the Ripper and the relevant events associated with the case (e.g., PC Long's testimony), or are we interested in studying how "Jack the Ripper" had contemporaneous and long-lasting effects in society and culture? The fact that these are not mutually exclusive, and the argument that maybe the Myth is more important than the facts, was the point of the thread.