Q and A: Who Was the Historical Jesus?: Discovery News

Get Feed

Description

Photos

-- Biblical scholar Rachel Havrelock is a MythBuster in her own right, dispelling popular beliefs about Christianity. The University of Illinois at Chicago professor traveled to the Holy Land to co-host the Discovery Channel documentary "Who Was Jesus?" which premiers April 5, Palm Sunday.

Havrelock recently sat down to speak with Discovery News' Jennifer Viegas about the historical Jesus , what she feels are some common misconceptions, and the role women played during Christianity's earliest years.

: What do you think is the most common misconception today about the Bible and its teachings? : That it was meant to present a very conservative, traditional viewpoint. You must remember that the concept of God was, and perhaps still is, a radical social idea. Rather than being beholden to an oligarchy, an individual can now answer to a deity. It created the possibility of an egalitarian society.

The core of Jesus' message was directed to the economically downtrodden, the poor farmers, laborers and others who had little power in their own lives. Jesus presented a radical social proposition that meant society could be reconfigured to allow for less inequity and more sharing.

: For Christian believers, there is no doubt that Jesus existed. Is there a strong argument for an historical Jesus, though, having lived sometime around the first century A.D.? : Yes, I think there is. The evidence comes from the Bible itself, but not in the way you might suppose. : Please explain. : Certain details of Jesus' life simply don't fit with idealized notions of a Messiah. He's baptized by John the Baptist, a lesser figure according to the Gospels. He addresses women in his teachings and through his actions. He's from a backwater. These are aspects that seem to speak to the historical figure of Jesus of ...

Original URL

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/03/historical-jesus.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/03/historical-jesus.html

Comments

• Public Comments

  • 7 months ago

    
    
    

    I wish everyone would read this, especially those in the Church. I know a church that recently published their requirements for deacons that would have likely disqualified Jesus on several counts. Seems ironic.
    
    (Please see my update below. When I wrote this comment originally, all I read were the parts above in the Twine post. Murray's comment caused me to read the full article.)

    I wish everyone would read this, especially those in the Church. I know a church that recently published their requirements for deacons that would have likely disqualified Jesus on several counts. Seems ironic. <br /> <br /> (Please see my update below. When I wrote this comment originally, all I read were the parts above in the Twine post. Murray's comment caused me to read the full article.)

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: History & Mythology

    • . .•∞º˙

      7 months ago

      
      
      

      Which is why He was so relevant back then when he showed up--religions make their own interpretations of the right way to "practice" one's faith, and build up their own rules that evolve over time, moving further and further away from the real teachings and intent of the Message. If churches could simply separate the politics from their practices, and individuals stopped trying to corrupt that Message into zealotry, martyrdom, fanaticism, for their own purposes, we would all be living in a much better place.
      
      The compelling thing is that Jesus' own traits that would have 'disqualified' him are also the same traits that make him just like you and me and everybody. Nobody's perfect, and when an authority sets 'expectations' that are difficult to achieve, it elevates them while demeaning all others. Not a good message at all.

      Which is why He was so relevant back then when he showed up--religions make their own interpretations of the right way to "practice" one's faith, and build up their own rules that evolve over time, moving further and further away from the real teachings and intent of the Message. If churches could simply separate the politics from their practices, and individuals stopped trying to corrupt that Message into zealotry, martyrdom, fanaticism, for their own purposes, we would all be living in a much better place.<br /><br />The compelling thing is that Jesus' own traits that would have 'disqualified' him are also the same traits that make him just like you and me and everybody. Nobody's perfect, and when an authority sets 'expectations' that are difficult to achieve, it elevates them while demeaning all others. Not a good message at all.

      • Some HTML is allowed.
      • Reply
      • Cancel
      • Submit
      Commented in: History & Mythology

      • Murray Peat

        7 months ago

        
        
        

        I read the article. Seems pretty positive about Jesus. But some sifting and background is necessary
        
        Jesus was born in Bethlehem where the Messiah was supposed to come from and grew up in Nazareth. Nazareth was in Galilee and it was to Galilee that it had been prophesied would come the Messiah to remove their darkness because the district of Galilee had many nations living there including members of the "lost" 10 tribes. Read Isaiah 60:3 and then Luke 2:32.
        
        Westerners so much see everything personally. Jesus came to reveal God (Yahweh) and to do so he chose to identify himself as one with the Israel in every respect except sin. The waters of baptism signify a dying to self and a living to God. Jesus submitted to this to identify with Israel. They didn't know it at the time but all those sins they were confessing prior to baptism were going somewhere. Confession of sin isn't an ethereal nothingness that is just symbolic. Something real and profound takes place. Jesus came to take away Israel's sin. By that I mean (as does the Bible), literally, in himself (in his body/soul/spirit) he carried their sins. All of their sins. As he stepped into the waters of the Jordan, the sins contained in that river entered himself. Not only those sins but all the sins of Israel since its conception. So Jesus was carrying a huge amount of sin when he entered the river to be baptised. But none of them were his own. At tht moment of his baptism by water, his father in heaven (Yahweh) sent down the Holy Spirit. If he hadn't received the Spirit, he wouldn't have survived another day.
        
        There's more to Paul's evangelism than meets the (modern Christian) eye. Yes, you didn't have to be Jewish (ie from the 2 tribes around Jerusalem) but to receive the message of the gospel you had to believe in Yahweh. Now the original nation of Israel comprised 12 tribes not just 2. But by the time of Jesus the only "true" Jew was a Jew from the tribe of Judah (ie a Judean from which the word Jew derives.) That left 10 tribes of people who still believed in Yahweh but had been scattered (by the Assyrian invasion hundreds of years before.) Where were these people living and did they attend synagues? They lived in Galilee and across the Roman-Jewish world.Yes, they attended synagogues. Were they called Jews? No because they were not Jews (from Judea). They were Israelites and the jews called them Gentiles because anyone who was not a Jew was a gentile. So when paul went off to Turkey and Greece and Rome to convert people he always went to the synagogues because there he knew he would find people who knew about Yahweh already just as the Jews did. It was in these places that Paul got all his converts. Why? Because his mission was not to the world (as we know it) but to the israeli world, just as Jesus' had been.
        
        Of course there were female disciples. Probably hundreds of them. Some of the women say some wonderful things in the New Testament. However, leadership and eldership were usually reserved for men which was why Jesus chose 12 men and no women to be his apostles. Communities cared for each other, husbands and wives cared for and respected each other, children of these families loved and held their parents in high respect. Yes, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute that we know. I don't know why anyone thinks she was.

        I read the article. Seems pretty positive about Jesus. But some sifting and background is necessary<br /><br />Jesus was born in Bethlehem where the Messiah was supposed to come from and grew up in Nazareth. Nazareth was in Galilee and it was to Galilee that it had been prophesied would come the Messiah to remove their darkness because the district of Galilee had many nations living there including members of the "lost" 10 tribes. Read Isaiah 60:3 and then Luke 2:32. <br /><br />Westerners so much see everything personally. Jesus came to reveal God (Yahweh) and to do so he chose to identify himself as one with the Israel in every respect except sin. The waters of baptism signify a dying to self and a living to God. Jesus submitted to this to identify with Israel. They didn't know it at the time but all those sins they were confessing prior to baptism were going somewhere. Confession of sin isn't an ethereal nothingness that is just symbolic. Something real and profound takes place. Jesus came to take away Israel's sin. By that I mean (as does the Bible), literally, in himself (in his body/soul/spirit) he carried their sins. All of their sins. As he stepped into the waters of the Jordan, the sins contained in that river entered himself. Not only those sins but all the sins of Israel since its conception. So Jesus was carrying a huge amount of sin when he entered the river to be baptised. But none of them were his own. At tht moment of his baptism by water, his father in heaven (Yahweh) sent down the Holy Spirit. If he hadn't received the Spirit, he wouldn't have survived another day. <br /><br />There's more to Paul's evangelism than meets the (modern Christian) eye. Yes, you didn't have to be Jewish (ie from the 2 tribes around Jerusalem) but to receive the message of the gospel you had to believe in Yahweh. Now the original nation of Israel comprised 12 tribes not just 2. But by the time of Jesus the only "true" Jew was a Jew from the tribe of Judah (ie a Judean from which the word Jew derives.) That left 10 tribes of people who still believed in Yahweh but had been scattered (by the Assyrian invasion hundreds of years before.) Where were these people living and did they attend synagues? They lived in Galilee and across the Roman-Jewish world.Yes, they attended synagogues. Were they called Jews? No because they were not Jews (from Judea). They were Israelites and the jews called them Gentiles because anyone who was not a Jew was a gentile. So when paul went off to Turkey and Greece and Rome to convert people he always went to the synagogues because there he knew he would find people who knew about Yahweh already just as the Jews did. It was in these places that Paul got all his converts. Why? Because his mission was not to the world (as we know it) but to the israeli world, just as Jesus' had been. <br /><br />Of course there were female disciples. Probably hundreds of them. Some of the women say some wonderful things in the New Testament. However, leadership and eldership were usually reserved for men which was why Jesus chose 12 men and no women to be his apostles. Communities cared for each other, husbands and wives cared for and respected each other, children of these families loved and held their parents in high respect. Yes, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute that we know. I don't know why anyone thinks she was.

        • Some HTML is allowed.
        • Reply
        • Cancel
        • Submit
        Commented in: History & Mythology

  • 6 months ago

    
    
    

    I'm curious now (after actually reading the article) how Rachel Havrelock was ever deemed a "Biblical scholar." She shows only piecemeal knowledge of the Biblical text. For example:
    

    1. She does not note, as Murray mentioned above, that he was born in Bethlehem and spent his first years hiding in Egypt. He only later moved to Nazareth.
    2. The meaning of Matthew 2:23, that he shall be called a Nazarene, is completely misunderstood. Two explanations exist. The first states that the "quotation" isn't actually a quotation and follows a consistent pattern of other citations of "the prophets" that the meaning is from a general understanding of the OT prophesies. The second, from Jerome, states that the use of "branch" in Isaiah 11:1 is related to the meaning of Nazarene. (Personally, this last seems a bit far-fetched, but some still hold it.)
    3. Also, as Murray mentioned in his comment, women were very obviously disciples of Jesus. To say that is unclear is completely ridiculous. In fact, from an historical context, that women were so prominently included is a quite significant inclusion as to the historical accuracy of the Bible. In no other social context were women deemed important in that time.
    4. Paul a marketing genius? Please. He started off killing Christians until he met the risen Christ on the Damascus road. He then purposely did not try to win people with clever words. Or maybe allowing yourself to be captured and imprisoned so that you will surely be put to death is a terrific marketing idea?

    
    I'd hate to know what she thinks of the resurrection. (Actually, I heard someone talk about the Discovery channel's coverage of the resurrection. They apparently said that Jesus must have some how survived the scourging and crucifiction, which is also ridiculous, especially when you think that someone may have then believed in him at all.)

    I'm curious now (after actually reading the article) how Rachel Havrelock was ever deemed a "Biblical scholar." She shows only piecemeal knowledge of the Biblical text. For example: <br /> <ol><li>She does not note, as Murray mentioned above, that he was born in Bethlehem and spent his first years hiding in Egypt. He only later moved to Nazareth.</li><li>The meaning of Matthew 2:23, that he shall be called a Nazarene, is completely misunderstood. Two explanations exist. The <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/115" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">first</a> states that the "quotation" isn't actually a quotation and follows a consistent pattern of other citations of "the prophets" that the meaning is from a general understanding of the OT prophesies. The <a href="http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-pro-tradition-nazarene-matthew-2-23.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">second</a>, from Jerome, states that the use of "branch" in Isaiah 11:1 is related to the meaning of Nazarene. (Personally, this last seems a bit far-fetched, but some still hold it.)</li><li>Also, as Murray mentioned in his comment, women were very obviously disciples of Jesus. To say that is unclear is completely ridiculous. In fact, from an historical context, that women were so prominently included is a quite significant inclusion as to the historical accuracy of the Bible. In no other social context were women deemed important in that time.</li><li>Paul a marketing genius? Please. He started off killing Christians until he met the risen Christ on the Damascus road. He then purposely <em>did not</em> try to win people with clever words. Or maybe allowing yourself to be captured and imprisoned so that you will surely be put to death is a terrific marketing idea?</li></ol> <br /> I'd hate to know what she thinks of the resurrection. (Actually, I heard someone talk about the Discovery channel's coverage of the resurrection. They apparently said that Jesus must have some how survived the scourging and crucifiction, which is also ridiculous, especially when you think that someone may have then believed in him at all.)

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: History & Mythology
  Add a Comment

Here's a list of the HTML tags we allow: