Otto Pfleiderer (German theologian) put forth that history had been recast under theological influence corresponding to different stages of theological reflection and the development of the ecclesiastical consciousness, the self-consciousness of the Church or its clergy.
Steefen
The needs of an investigative journalist, the needs of historians, the needs of the faithful looking at the foundations of Christianity are different from the needs of the apostle Paul and are different from those of the Church Fathers. The Church needed to be created. So, we got a Biblical Jesus of the primitive Gentile Church (moreso than the Jerusalem Church) and what they needed him to be.
The historical Jesus was recast as the Jesus of the gospels (the Biblical Jesus) due to ecclesiastical and theological influences to fulfill ecclesiastical and theological needs. That is a valid criticism that still carries weight.
But it is important to realize the historical Jesus was recast as the Jesus of the gospels (the Biblical Jesus) due to the influence of Rome (which had to do battle with a Jesus of Galilee and his band of mariners) and Rome’s need for Judea not to be 1) in civil war and 2) in revolt against Rome. That is a valid criticism. If the ecclesiastical and theological needs were there, say, in the 50s C.E., the gospels would be much different than gospels written after Rome needed to put down a civil war and a revolt. Rome (Emperor Titus) definitely did not need Jewish militant messianism raising its head again or while he was dealing with the national emergency of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, just 9 or 10 years later, 79 CE.
The influence and needs of the Roman Empire dwarfed the influence and needs of the Jerusalem Church and the Gentile Church. The Jerusalem Church never saw the Biblical Jesus (Jesus of the gospels) in print.
Steefen, most people posting here understand perfectly well that the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the gospels are not the same exact person, and that much of what is in the gospels didn’t happen at all. So we’re good there, but you have all these specifics that I don’t think modern historiography backs up. Historians of the 19th and early 20th century did good work advancing our understanding of Jesus, but the advances didn’t stop there.
And your reference to seeing the gospels in print is anachronistic. You have to go a ways forward in time to find any copies of the gospel that aren’t in manuscript form. Not sure if you’d have to go all the way to 1455 and moveable type, but pretty close. Bibles were hand-written before then.
I think your point is that there was a historical Jesus, but the Jesus of the gospels bears little or no relation to him.
I disagree with this, and quoting old books isn’t going to make your point. The real Jesus is there in the gospels, because there was a continuity of memory and belief, even as both evolved to suit the needs of a growing institution. And truthfully, memories of all major historical figures change in accordance with the times. If you’d study more history, you’d realize this.
Albert Schweitzer, p. 307
The liberal Jesus has given place to the Germanic Jesus. This is a figure which has as little to do with the Marcan hypothesis as the “liberal” Jesus had which preceded it; otherwise it could not so easily have survived the downfall of the Gospel of Mark as an historical source. It is evident, therefore, that this professedly historical Jesus is not a purely historical figure, but, one which has been artificially transplanted into history.
Steefen
It is evident that “the historical Jesus” is not a purely historical figure, but one which has been artificially transplanted into history.
also:
The parts of the Biblical Jesus that are not purely historical have been artificially transplanted into history.
godspell
The mythic elements in the gospels have been accepted as history.
Robert
He said that? I must have missed that. That would be a position of evangelical scholars or fundamentalist apologists.
Steefen
or the Bible itself with the Biblical Jesus being a part of the Bible.
The accurately historical parts of Jesus are not artificial transplants: the parts of the Biblical Jesus that are not purely historical are artificial transplants.
godspell sets up only two categories: accurately historical parts of Jesus and mythical elements.
I would set up probably five categories: 1) accurately historical parts, 2) accurately historical parts of different people (non-Jesus characters) in the multi-person, composite character of the Biblical Jesus, 3) accurate historical parts where parts of the account are correct but there has been a shift in time, 4) imaginative and constructed parts by the primitive Gentile church, by various Oral Tradition transmitters and by the gospel writers themselves, and 5) mythical parts from a variety of myths brought in by the primitive Gentile Church, Oral Tradition transmitters, and/or gospel writers.
Robert
Schweitzer is saying the Germanic Jesus, which is only professedly historical, is not a purely historical figure, but, one which has been artificially transplanted into history.
Steefen
I typed what Schweitzer said: you are not correcting me at all.
Going on, whether it is the Germanic historical Jesus or Bart Ehrman’s historical Jesus, the parts of either historical Jesus that are wrong are artificial transplants into history. Schweitzer provided the formula that works under a number of cases. Any time a person inserts anything erroneous into their notion of Jesus, that is exactly what they are doing, corrupting history with artificial transplants. Jesus of Galilee and his mariners who fought Vespasian at the battle of Galilee are artificial transplants into the history of 27 CE to 33 CE.
Jesus traveled north of Galilee, in a “Gentile country”. (from The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 297)
1) Decapolis
Jesus performed a miracle in the region of the Decapolis, which means Ten Cities, in which he miraculously healed a man who was deaf and had difficulty speaking, as explained in Mark 7:31-37
2) Caesarea Philippi
Caesarea Philippi is north of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus and his disciples visited this region. Here, Peter declared that Jesus is the Son of God. This event is called “Peter’s Confession of Christ” by Christians.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
Good. Who wrote about “Jesus of Galilee and his mariners who fought Vespasian at the battle of Galilee”?
Steefen
The authors of the gospel took a historical Jesus of Galilee and artificially transplanted him into the history of 27 CE to 33 CE.
With or without Josephus giving an account of the battle of Galilee, there was a battle of Galilee.
page 313-314 of page 327, end of Chapter 18
According to Albert Kalthoff, author of “The Problem of the Christ: Ground-plan of a Social Theology,” [the Biblical Jesus] never existed. Even supposing he had been one of the numerous Jewish Messiahs who were put to death [by crucifixion or in battle against Rome], Jesus certainly did not found Christianity.
Kalthoff’s quarrel with the historical Jesus of modern theology was that he could find no connecting link to the Life of Jesus constructed from primitive Christianity.
Steefen
Kalthoff could not find a connection from the Church of Jerusalem to an acceptable biography of Jesus, he could not find a connection from the Gentile Church to an acceptable biography of Jesus, and he could not find a connection from the Hellenists led by Stephen to an acceptable biography of Jesus.
Less than an acceptable biography of Jesus Schweitzer goes on to say, let us see a match between the values of Jesus and the values of the Church which supposedly sprung from him. Here:
Schweitzer
If we cannot trace the path from its beginning onwards [from the Church of Jerusalem, from the Gentile Church, from the Hellenists], we had better try to work backwards endeavoring first to define in the theology of the primitive Church the values which we shall look to find again [these values] in the Life of Jesus [a historically accurate and acceptable biography of Jesus Christ].
Robert said
Was Josephus one of these authors?
And you believe that Jesus of Galilee and his mariners, before being artificially transplanted into the history of 27 CE to 33 CE, fought Vespasian in the Battle of Galilee?
Everyone dates the gospels after the Battle of Galilee. The Battle of Galilee happened, then Jesus and his fishermen were artificially transplanted into history as the gospels were presented as accounts of what happened 27 CE to 33 CE. The Samaritan was a redeemer pretender assassinated by Pontius Pilate. Jesus who led the fight against the Romans led by Vespasian and Titus was not assassinated by Pilate.
You know, I resisted using these forums. Because I know, from long experience, that unmoderated forums attract crazy people the way rotting meat attracts flies.
Robert, I can’t very well chide you for encouraging the delusions of these people by trying (vainly) to correct them, because there is this log in my eye. I need to go see my opthalmologist.
Robert said
Was Josephus an author of one or more of these gospels?
Josephus may have been an author of one or more authentic or inauthentic letters of Paul.
Josephus states that the content of his testimony (Flavianum Testimonium) is a sad calamity; so, Josephus passed judgment on the main thrust of the gospels and found them to be characteristic of the definition of calamity (a cause for great and sudden damage, distress).
Sadly, this belief in Jesus came up suddenly. It did not come up gradually from 27 CE to 67 CE. It was someone’s sudden idea to invent a life of Christ, fleshing out a 3-year slice of life of a man with similar or contrasting overtones of the Homeric Epics (for a similar example, being able to cross over water like Hermes; for a contrasting example, when Jesus enters Jerusalem, there are no trees filled with figs).
Schweitzer
How did the primitive Church’s belief in the Messiahship of Jesus arise? To that question Pfleiderer can give no answer, yet he brings together wood, straw, and stublle, but where he gets the fire from to kindle the whole into the ardent faith of primitive Christianity, he is unable to make clear. According to Albert Kalthoff, the fire lighted itself–Christianity arose by spontaneous combustion
Steefen
from the conditions capable of alighting and exploding Christianity onto the scene:
Jewish Messianic expectations
the connection of an expectant Jewish sentiment to the burning of Rome
the connection of an expectant Jewish sentiment to the initial success of defeating a Roman legion (Legion XII Fulminata, Battle of Beth Horon in 66 CE
then a horrible change of fortune where the Jewish Messianic militant successes called for remorse so much so that the Messiah was nothing but non-violent and punished by Rome.
and there was the rush to fill the vacuum of the collapse of the Temple of Jerusalem with Temple Judaism being to blame for belief in a fiery, apocalyptic deliverance from Rome (at Rome itself) until proven otherwise. Yes, Jesus would be devout to the religion of Temple Judaism and he would be the leading person to speak for the Jewish God as the Son of God and the leading person to be punished by Rome.
Did Josephus write a gospel? In his position of authority, we do not find him outright stopping the spread of the literature except to pass judgment on it.
Friends I think you probably have all figured this out already but Steefen subscribes to the hypothesis that the figure of Jesus is a conspiratorially manufactured non-historical composite of historical figures, including Julius Caesar! If you look back at previous threads you will find reams and reams of such stuff posted by him. Most of these threads contain nothing but long solo posts interspersed with the occasional link to hours long YouTube videos.
Of course your time is yours to do with as you please but I feel the need to point out that you can’t really have a normal conversation with Steefen. He is what I would call a “total immersion” type poster. Meaning you are either all the way in or all the way out. No dipping allowed. I speak from experience. A while back I made an admittedly snarky comment* after one of his posts and was placed under his anathema. He no longer responds to me because of my insufficient faith.
So carry on. But you can’t say you weren’t warned.
*I asked him what color the sky was on his planet. But I did watch the three hour video.
Robert said
Josephus may have been an author of one or more authentic or inauthentic letters of Paul.
Josephus states that the content of his testimony (Flavianum Testimonium) is a sad calamity; so, Josephus passed judgment on the main thrust of the gospels and found them to be characteristic of the definition of calamity (a cause for great and sudden damage, distress).
Sadly, this belief in Jesus came up suddenly. It did not come up gradually from 27 CE to 67 CE. It was someone’s sudden idea to invent a life of Christ, fleshing out a 3-year slice of life of a man with similar or contrasting overtones of the Homeric Epics (for a similar example, being able to cross over water like Hermes; for a contrasting example, when Jesus enters Jerusalem, there are no trees filled with figs). …
Did Josephus write a gospel? In his position of authority, we do not find him outright stopping the spread of the literature except to pass judgment on it.
Which letters of Paul do you think Josephus may have written?
Steefen
I may or may not get around to discovering the answer to that question. It is a question not included within the scope of my current writing project, and the statement “Josephus may have been an author of one or more authentic or inauthentic letters of Paul” is not in the scope of my current writing project. The question, which gospel or gospels did Josephus write is not in the scope of my current writing project.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)